2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Navy_Pete]

Yeah its a hard climb I think even if the party is clearly in the wrong by the time it is resolved it will be too late. The real kick in the nuts is the disqualification of 25% of the party membership

She stated that she thinks she has a strong case, and I think her firm is high profile enough they don't need to take on long shots, and a BS filing might actually be worse for their reputation (and books).

I think her firm is also capable of making a strong case out of a weaker one.

Will see how it falls out I guess.

 

[IKnowNothing]

She stated that she thinks she has a strong case, and I think her firm is high profile enough they don't need to take on long shots, and a BS filing might actually be worse for their reputation (and books).

I think her firm is also capable of making a strong case out of a weaker one.

Will see how it falls out I guess.

Regardless of how it shakes out for this race, I wonder if the bigger takeaway is that Brown, and possibly by extension Charest and their PC backing aren't going to go away quietly and accept Reform rule. If theres any truth to those riding stats there's ammo for a split

 

[Quirky]

From where I sit, population density shouldn't dictate the direction of the country. And our current division of seats only helps to keep the status quo in place we while leave huge swaths of the country undervalued and represented; and only creates more division.

Different sections of major cities like Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto have different issues, don't you know.....

 

[Kirkhill]

It must be something miserable to live in such a deep seated fear of Harper, like Mulcair and Trudeau. They seem to see him around every corner.

Speaking of Stephen Harper - his current gig - Chairman

International Democracy Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Halifax Tar]

Different sections of major cities like Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto have different issues, don't you know.....

My point is more that we equate population density with a priority of concerns, issues at at hand and electoral results.

For example, provincially, just because half the province of NS lives in the HRM does not mean that the concerns of those in Yarmouth or Sydney are any less valid. And they should have equal representation.

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

If we want to progress we need to move beyond population density as the measure of electoral power. Only through getting everyone on board to an equal playing field will we overcome our divisiveness.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Speaking of Stephen Harper - his current gig - Chairman

International Democracy Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not sure what you're striking at here. Or just providing info ?

 

[Kirkhill]

My point is more that we equate population density with a priority of concerns, issues at at hand and electoral results.

For example, provincially, just because half the province of NS lives in the HRM does not mean that the concerns of those in Yarmouth or Sydney are any less valid. And they should have equal representation.

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

If we want to progress we need to move beyond population density as the measure of electoral power. Only through getting everyone on board to an equal playing field will we overcome our divisiveness.

That thinking would apply equally to the first nations communities. They are small areas as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what you're striking at here. Or just providing info ?

Just providing info.

 

[Quirky]

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

If we want to progress we need to move beyond population density as the measure of electoral power. Only through getting everyone on board to an equal playing field will we overcome our divisiveness.

Until the electorate is changed where everyone below the 49th Parallel is responsible for voting in the government, then nothing will change. By the time votes are starting to get counted in Manitoba the election is over.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

The solution lies less in how representation is decided, and more in what authority the representatives have.

Again: Subsidiarity.

 

[GR66]

My point is more that we equate population density with a priority of concerns, issues at at hand and electoral results.

For example, provincially, just because half the province of NS lives in the HRM does not mean that the concerns of those in Yarmouth or Sydney are any less valid. And they should have equal representation.

If we want find a way to come back together as a tight country we need figure out a proper method of representation that does not have certain areas dominating others, and making sure the small areas have equal importance electorally.

If we want to progress we need to move beyond population density as the measure of electoral power. Only through getting everyone on board to an equal playing field will we overcome our divisiveness.

Kind of like the Senate (if it were actually effective)? A Triple-E Senate (Equal, Elected & Effective) could do that nationally and similarly a Triple-E Upper House in the Provinces could represent the various regions within each Province.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That thinking would apply equally to the first nations communities. They are small areas as well.

Absolutely.

Just providing info.

Thank you.

Until the electorate is changed where everyone below the 49th Parallel is responsible for voting in the government, then nothing will change. By the time votes are starting to get counted in Manitoba the election is over.

Same feeling in the Maritimes. We are the pregame show, and everything after Ont is the post game show.

The solution lies less in how representation is decided, and more in what authority the representatives have.

Again: Subsidiarity.

Interesting. I have some reading to do. Thank you.

Kind of like the Senate (if it were actually effective)? A Triple-E Senate (Equal, Elected & Effective) could do that nationally and similarly a Triple-E Upper House in the Provinces could represent the various regions within each Province.

I find it funny that we have a House of Commons yet I would argue much of the those in the HoC are not the common person.

Your point about the senate is excellent.

 

[Navy_Pete]

From what I can tell there are a lot of plus sides to having an appointed Senate; because they aren't worried about getting elected, they can push back with something, even if it's unpopular, and aren't fighting to make some kind of soundbite for the news clips. On the flip side they aren't elected so can't be held accountable via an election, and really hard to get rid of deadweight.

Pros and cons to each system, but looking at the US I'm okay with the status quo. We generally seem to do a reasonably good job of not selecting total incompetents to the Senate, and most of them are actually really good and are there in a form of genuine public service. They are deadlocked and highly partisan, and I could see us going down the same path if we went to an elected Senate as well. ALready enough delays getting things done in Parliament.

Sen. Sinclair, Sen Dallaire and some others immediately come to mind, and I don't know that either of them would have been elected.

Guess at the end of the day good people can make a bad system effective, while bad people can trainwreck a good system.

 

[GR66]

From what I can tell there are a lot of plus sides to having an appointed Senate; because they aren't worried about getting elected, they can push back with something, even if it's unpopular, and aren't fighting to make some kind of soundbite for the news clips. On the flip side they aren't elected so can't be held accountable via an election, and really hard to get rid of deadweight.

Pros and cons to each system, but looking at the US I'm okay with the status quo. We generally seem to do a reasonably good job of not selecting total incompetents to the Senate, and most of them are actually really good and are there in a form of genuine public service. They are deadlocked and highly partisan, and I could see us going down the same path if we went to an elected Senate as well. ALready enough delays getting things done in Parliament.

Sen. Sinclair, Sen Dallaire and some others immediately come to mind, and I don't know that either of them would have been elected.

Guess at the end of the day good people can make a bad system effective, while bad people can trainwreck a good system.

Bit of a derail but Senate appointments could be where proportional representation could actually be useful. The number of Senate seats assigned to each party could be based on the proportional popular vote received by the parties in their Provincial elections.

Senators then would not technically be directly elected individually, but elections would determine the party composition of the Senate. Assuming a party maintains their seat count in the Senate those Senators deemed by their nominating parties to be doing a good job would keep their seats while still providing an opportunity for poorly performing Senators to be dropped.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Speaking of Stephen Harper - his current gig - Chairman

International Democracy Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The OTHER #NewWorldOrder

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not much point in having two bodies which are in practical terms chosen by voters along party lines. Not all parties in provincial elections will have federal equivalents. What is the point of a bicameral legislature if not to have a second body of legislators whose main purpose is to review the work of the first? Given such purpose, what is the point of choosing any mechanism for selection which tends to make the second mirror the first, thus becoming a rubber stamp?

 

[GR66]

Not much point in having two bodies which are in practical terms chosen by voters along party lines. Not all parties in provincial elections will have federal equivalents. What is the point of a bicameral legislature if not to have a second body of legislators whose main purpose is to review the work of the first? Given such purpose, what is the point of choosing any mechanism for selection which tends to make the second mirror the first, thus becoming a rubber stamp?

The Senate would be drawn from members representing the Provincial parties not the Federal parties since their role is to represent the interests of the Provinces.

Electors often select Provincial parties that are different than they select Federally. In Ontario for example the 2021 Federal Election saw the Liberal Party of Canada receive 78 of the 121 seats (64% of the seats with 39% of the popular vote) vs 37 seats for the Conservative Party (31% of the seats with 35% of the popular vote). Meanwhile in the 2022 Ontario Provincial election the Ontario Liberal Party received 24% of the popular vote compared to 41% for the Conservative party. Under a PR system then Ontario would have 64% Liberal/35% Conservative representation in the HOC but 24% Liberal/41% Conservative representation in the Senate. Hardly the Senate mirroring the HOC.

Currently the Senate can in effect be stacked by the party that remains in power the longest as they will have the most opportunity to fill seats as they become vacant. And despite the supposed "independence" of the Liberal-appointed Senators they are all still selected by the Federal party leader in power at the time. Much more likelihood of "rubber stamping" in that situation than by members of a potentially different (Provincial) party with no direct ties to the Federal party leadership.

 

[brihard]

But that's not how "ABC" (strategic voting) worked out. Handing more votes to the LPC - which is what "ABC" effectively did, and realistically always will do - helped give the LPC a majority (NDP irrelevant). Elections since haven't featured "ABC" (certainly not with the same intensity), and minorities resulted. On the evidence, fighting for votes and not conceding votes to the LPC is a more effective tactic for the NDP.

Who was talking about ABC? I was talking about NDP working to maximize their seats in parliament, but in the knowledge that what that means is that they can either make or break an attempt a minority government’s attempt to pass a bill. Their best case is a Liberal minority where the NDP can, alone, push a vote over 50%, but the Bloc and Greens cannot.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Who was talking about ABC?

I was, when I criticized Mulcair. I suppose I missed whatever else it was you were responding to.

 

[FSTO]

Elections in Canada are, broadly, fair - PEI and the Territories are grossly overrepresented, so are most rural areas, and most big cities are underrepresented

I hear this a lot. But when power is concentrated in the PMO and the backbench is full of trained seals does it really matter that rural areas are over represented in the HoC? Also, the most powerful cabinet ministers are all from major urban centres, even though it seems they are nothing more than well fed trained seals these days.