LogFAQs > #934812524

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Any Canadian's here actually like Justin Trudeau?
darkknight109 02/24/20 1:14:04 PM #15:	Dynalo posted... Ranked Ballot is the same issue, it just hides it better. There would still be articles proclaiming that x party was only the first choice for 35% of the country. It's still an improvement in that it fixes one of the major issues of FPTP - the spoiler effect. Numerous times in previous elections I've had to vote for a candidate that wasn't my first choice because they had the best chance of beating a candidate that I absolutely didn't want to win. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. In a Ranked Ballot system I'm free to cast my vote for whoever I want, knowing that it will not be wasted no matter which candidate I pick. Dynalo posted... Proportional fixes it by making it so no government is likely to ever have a majority ever again. You could argue that this is a good thing, but it makes it nigh impossible for parties to keep campaign promises, especially if they're divisive. I don't see the issue there. Divisive campaign promises shouldn't be kept. If you want to do something "divisive", you better be able to convince a clear majority of the country that it's in their best interests. On that note... Dynalo posted... I'm curious, which system would you prefer? Proportional for sure. It forces political parties to work together and compromise, two elements that are in short supply in modern politics. I dislike the idea of a single party or politician being able to basically act like an elected dictator for four years. No party having a majority in a proportional system, unless they are wildly popular, is, to my eye, a feature, not a bug. Proportional systems work fine. They've been put into practice in countries around the world and those countries haven't gotten mired in political gridlock. All it means is you'll have to adjust to the fact that if you're the dominant party that doesn't mean you get to do everything you want. Hell, we already have a system that works like that in minority governments. They're unstable (because under FPTP a few points movement in the polls can translate to massive shifts in seats, which would not be the case in a proportional system), but other than that they work fine. Dynalo posted... I'd also like to see some sort of system in place where the pm is separate from the party leader. Well, as I referenced, up until the 1930s/40s, the PM and his cabinet actually had a lot less power than they do today. There was a very distinct line between the legislative and executive branches which has now all but disappeared. I would like to see that return, but that's something of a longshot. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:934812524] in Any Canadi... [t:78427502]...</cite> <quote>Dynalo posted... </cite> <quote>Ranked Ballot is the same issue, it just hides it better. There would still be articles proclaiming that x party was only the first choice for 35% of the country.</quote>It's still an improvement in that it fixes one of the major issues of FPTP - the spoiler effect. Numerous times in previous elections I've had to vote for a candidate that wasn't my first choice because they had the best chance of beating a candidate that I absolutely didn't want to win. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. In a Ranked Ballot system I'm free to cast my vote for whoever I want, knowing that it will not be wasted no matter which candidate I pick. Dynalo posted... </cite> <quote>Proportional fixes it by making it so no government is likely to ever have a majority ever again. You could argue that this is a good thing, but it makes it nigh impossible for parties to keep campaign promises, especially if they're divisive.</quote>I don't see the issue there. Divisive campaign promises shouldn't be kept. If you want to do something "divisive", you better be able to convince a clear majority of the country that it's in their best interests. On that note... Dynalo posted... </cite> <quote>I'm curious, which system would you prefer?</quote>Proportional for sure. It forces political parties to work together and compromise, two elements that are in short supply in modern politics. I dislike the idea of a single party or politician being able to basically act like an elected dictator for four years. No party having a majority in a proportional system, unless they are wildly popular, is, to my eye, a feature, not a bug. Proportional systems work fine. They've been put into practice in countries around the world and those countries haven't gotten mired in political gridlock. All it means is you'll have to adjust to the fact that if you're the dominant party that doesn't mean you get to do everything you want. Hell, we already have a system that works like that in minority governments. They're unstable (because under FPTP a few points movement in the polls can translate to massive shifts in seats, which would not be the case in a proportional system), but other than that they work fine. Dynalo posted... </cite> <quote>I'd also like to see some sort of system in place where the pm is separate from the party leader.</quote>Well, as I referenced, up until the 1930s/40s, the PM and his cabinet actually had a lot less power than they do today. There was a very distinct line between the legislative and executive branches which has now all but disappeared. I would like to see that return, but that's something of a longshot. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1