The Elections Topic

[thehackercat]

Well, the current two-party system is pretty stupid. And unfair to third-party candidates who are probably a little less crazy than those who have to buy into an entire red/blue party in order to run for office.

Also consider how different the United States was when the current Electoral College system was created. (There was no California, for one.) I have always defended the EC but this election caused me to see the folly of the thing. All candidates have to do is fight tooth-and-nail for a handful of high-electorate states like California or New York or Florida, and forget about the other 40-something. Especially fly-over states like mine. Romney only campaigned here once, back in March. If Obama made an appearance, I sure can't remember it; although he wouldn't have had a chance anyway.

I think an instant-runoff voting system would greatly help the United States' politics. Implementing such a system would be difficult though.

[Snortimer]

I wish we had preferential voting in Canada, too. Our system allows a party to win a majority with just under 40% of the vote, which was fine when it was the centrist Liberal Party that was winning, not so much when the most rightwing party we have is winning and over 60% of the population prefers a more left-wing party.

I think we need to switch to a system like the NDP used at their last leadership convention - let everyone pick a "1st choice", "2nd choice", etc. for their riding. It should be like one of the systems over here - I'm no expert, really, and those are pretty complex, but most of them seem better than what we have.

It seems that the Schulze method and the Ranked pairs method have the fewest number of failures.

But any system that allows someone to win whom the absolute majority of voters consider the worst option is not a good voting system.

[KeenEmpire]

But any system that allows someone to win whom the absolute majority of voters consider the worst option is not a good voting system.

Unfortunately, voting systems are more often historical artifacts rather than being rationally designed.

[Levellass]

I wish we had preferential voting in Canada, too. Our system allows a party to win a majority with just under 40% of the vote, which was fine when it was the centrist Liberal Party that was winning, not so much when the most rightwing party we have is winning and over 60% of the population prefers a more left-wing party.

Man! This rigged voting system was fine when it was my party benefitting, but now it's not, I protest!

[Keening_Product]

I wish we had preferential voting in Canada, too. Our system allows a party to win a majority with just under 40% of the vote, which was fine when it was the centrist Liberal Party that was winning, not so much when the most rightwing party we have is winning and over 60% of the population prefers a more left-wing party.

Still happens in full preferential if you're working with electorates that aren't the size of the country.

Australia has had several governments form from 48-49 per cent of the vote because the votes the losing party got in some electorates were huge, upping their overall primary vote, while the winning party got a more even spread of support.

[Flaose]

Man! This rigged voting system was fine when it was my party benefitting, but now it's not, I protest!

Hahaha, it's true, at my end of Canada most of us are pretty happy about how things rolled out.

[Scarlet]

I wish we had preferential voting in Canada, too. Our system allows a party to win a majority with just under 40% of the vote, which was fine when it was the centrist Liberal Party that was winning, not so much when the most rightwing party we have is winning and over 60% of the population prefers a more left-wing party.

I disagree. It was NEVER okay to have such a system that was not proportional representation.
As a NDP supporter I dislike the liberals perhaps even more than the conservatives. The non-NDP are one party more or less actually. They support one another and in certain provinces on the provincial elections they merged into one party to try to prevent the NDP from winning.

If the cons had a minority government, they would have done all that they are doing now, because the liberals would have supported them in almost everything like they did last time around.

Hahaha, it's true, at my end of Canada most of us are pretty happy about how things rolled out.

There`s a reason why it`s called the dark side of Canada.






This is worth a look at... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwySCMovHk

[Flaose]

There`s a reason why it`s called the dark side of Canada.

Yeah, it's because Eastern Canada is jealous that we're the ones keeping the country fiscally solvent.

[Scarlet]

There`s a reason why it`s called the dark side of Canada.

Yeah, it's because Eastern Canada is jealous that we're the ones keeping the country fiscally solvent.

That's garg. Alberta is a cesspit ready to implode. And it always does when the price of oil goes down. The province always goes crying like a sad little fool to the eastern provinces whenever that happens. And it does happen. It drove the French to almost break off in the 1990s actually.

At any rate, the ecological catastrophe that will take place due to the tar sands will indeed require more than one can possibly imagine, to clean up. Already some 3.5 barrels of water are used to produce one barrel of oil. Lets not forget how many people are getting cancer and various epidemics because they live downstream from the tar sands. It's just a big problem ready to explode.



Oh, and it's thanks to the freaks from Alberta that Canada's socioeconomic condition has drastically eroded in the last several years.

[Fleexy]

A little late, but I side with Romney.

[Keening_Product]

A little late, but I side with Romney.

You horrible person

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised with my results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/231632664

Stein: 91%
Obama: 82%
Anderson: 72%
Johnson: 60%
Goode: 5%
Romney: 3%
American voters: 56%

And finally:
Fleexy: 7%

[Flaose]

And it always does when the price of oil goes down. The province always goes crying like a sad little fool to the eastern provinces whenever that happens. And it does happen. It drove the French to almost break off in the 1990s actually.

False. False, false, false, false, false. Where do you get your information?

Alberta hasn't received equalization payments (i.e. "gone crying to the eastern provinces") since 1965. Its net contribution since the program's inception in 1961 has been over $150 000 000 000. In the 1990s (when you say we were leeching off of Quebec) the province had multi-billion dollar surpluses. The Quebec referendum of 1995 had absolutely nothing to do with financial situation of Western Canada. Absolutely nothing. It had everything to do with the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, as well as feelings of having a unique identity that didn't fit in with the rest of Canada.

You need to tone down your hyperaggressive rhetoric. As well, if you bypass the word-censor again to use such strong language you will be banned for a week.

[Scarlet]

http://www.isidewith.com/results/231646699
After the first few I ignored the "importance" thing...

And it always does when the price of oil goes down. The province always goes crying like a sad little fool to the eastern provinces whenever that happens. And it does happen. It drove the French to almost break off in the 1990s actually.

False. False, false, false, false, false. Where do you get your information?

Alberta hasn't received equalization payments (i.e. "gone crying to the eastern provinces") since 1965. Its net contribution since the program's inception in 1961 has been over $150 000 000 000. In the 1990s (when you say we were leeching off of Quebec) the province had multi-billion dollar surpluses. The Quebec referendum of 1995 had absolutely nothing to do with financial situation of Western Canada. Absolutely nothing. It had everything to do with the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, as well as feelings of having a unique identity that didn't fit in with the rest of Canada.

You need to tone down your hyperaggressive rhetoric. As well, if you bypass the word-censor again to use such strong language you will be banned for a week.

Spread your myths to someone else.

The net flow to or from Alberta has fluctuated substantially. In the early 1980s, Albertans were the source of large real dollar per capita net inflows to the federal coffers but then, for the better part of a decade, Alberta too was a low level net recipient. After the mid-1990s, Alberta’s net contribution rose in line with those of British Columbia and Ontario.

http://www.business.ualberta.ca/Centres ... 2final.pdf

Asked a friend, he said...

[1:13:00 AM] : its not about being funded
[1:13:10 AM] : its about equaling everything out
[1:13:25 AM] : ontario and quebec were contributing way more then alberta
[1:13:52 AM] : so in that case alberta was receiving payments
[1:14:53 AM] : they never needed money to balance out
[1:15:14 AM] : but they still took advantage of the other provinces wealth

It is indeed one factor why the French were pissed off. It is not the only factor, but is indeed an important factor.

[StupidBunny]

You need to tone down your hyperaggressive rhetoric.

Scarlet's tone of political discussion is stuck in "Mugabe" mode.

[Keening_Product]

Scarlet's tone of political discussion is stuck in "Mugabe" mode.

There's faux power-sharing and non-faux spouse killing going on?