Ontario provincial elections....pfft....

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

Dis, the Greens have even worse leadership than the NDP! De Jong is a joke -- as long as he is the leader the Greens will continue to be a fringe/protest vote party.

The Ontario political scene is a joke right now, Franko. The Conservatives might just go down in flames because they didn't have the vision to throw out this faith-based schooling issue. The NDP are ... the NDP ... marking time and going nowhere ... provincally AND federally. The Liberals are liars led by a flake.

What a joke!

[franko]

workingfamilies.ca: funded by . . . well, you’ll see. Mostly anti-Tory (leader and party)/pro-NDP, but debate and discussion

daltonmcguinty.ca: gotta be funded by the Conservatives!

[Deleted]

Check this out, guys. It may be of interest to you who don't know who to vote for:

www.votecommunist.ca

I'm 100% serious. Check out the site.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Checkez ça les gars ... another opinion. Franko, I know we briefly talked about this but what do you feel are the inaccuracies with this opinion.

Sun, September 16, 2007

Foolish Ontario could muck up country

By SHEILA COPPS

Anyone who fears extremism should take a hard look at the upcoming Ontario election.

In less than a month, voters will be asked to pronounce by referendum on a crazy proposal to redraw the province's electoral map. The outcome could reshape Canada's political landscape forever.

The proposed changes would open the door to more power for political and religious zealots. What do the burka wearing Muslims, evangelical Christians and the ultra-orthodox Jews have in common? They are each inspired by the righteousness of their beliefs and represent a small minority in their fervor.

Most Muslims, like Christians and Jews, respect the separation of church and state, and work hard to ensure that personal religious beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others.

The fear that a fanatic few are out to proselytize the world is not unique to a single religion, nor is it solely a Canadian problem. But if Ontario's electoral system is changed, we may find ourselves joining those countries where a vocal, organized minority dictates for the majority.

The Ontario referendum asks whether citizens would like to throw out the current voting system in favour of a Mixed Member Proportional system.

NEW SYSTEM

The new system would mean that all parties with more than 3% of the vote in a general election would choose almost one-third of the members of the legislature. In the proposed mix, voters would directly elect 90 MPPs while 39 additional MPPs would be chosen from party lists.

A citizen's assembly, mandated to review electoral inequities, proposed the changes. They recommended the direct vote by every citizen be nixed in favour of a system where members can also be elected from party lists. Too bad the assembly never experienced the polarizing effect of proportional voting in other jurisdictions.

In the Israeli Knesset, (its parliament) any party with 1.5% of the vote is entitled to occupy seats proportional to their vote.

In theory, the system was established to give voice to every citizen, the same rational used in Ontario. In practice, it has lead to fractious political coalitions where extreme religious-based parties often hold the balance of power.

The proportional system institutionalizes extremist influence. Picture a minority parliament where a party with 3% of the vote is in control. That is exactly what is being proposed.

Some women's groups are organizing in favour of the new alignment, hoping it will counterbalance the appalling shortage of women in elected office.

But the current deficit results from a nomination process controlled by political parties. Robbing citizens of their rights in favour of political parties will never address the power imbalance.

The new mixed system inserts another level of potential discrimination. To be elected by proportional vote, you must be included on a party list. Independent thinkers need not apply. The proposal gives new meaning to the term, party favours.

The Ontario referendum is woefully silent on how the selection to the party list is determined. Elections Ontario says every political party would nominate candidates in advance of the election and describe how they were chosen. But one thing is clear. The party controls the List.

Anyone who thinks this is good for democracy is either naive or nuts. The current system, with a single party winning successive majorities with a minority of public support, is ripe for reform. But there are better reform models around the world. In France, for example, two votes are held to achieve a consensus. The first round eliminates all but the two major candidates. The second, a week later, is a runoff between the contenders, guaranteeing an outcome with majority public support.

Unfortunately, a clumsy attempt to fix one problem has spawned another. Ontario is now proposing a political system that empowers extremism and curries party favours. Does a political party with 3% public support deserve a seat? Is a party better placed to elect legislators than the people?

As for those looking to PR as a solution to gender inequality, beware of politicians bearing gifts. If you bemoan discrimination in existing political structures, why would you give parties more power?

Other Canadians viewing this as strictly an Ontario issue need to wake up! A political model built on empowering extremes would send shock waves across the country. Come Oct. 10, Canadians could be witnessing a political tsunami in the making.

le link

[Yossarian]

If Sheila Copps is so strongly against it, there must be some redeeming qualities to it. Thank you Ms. Copps for opening your big stupid mouth, once again.

I'm leaning to it, because I'm tired of 4-5 year dictatorships, as well as overwhelming majorities to parties that gain 1/3 of the popular vote, such as the NDP under Bob Rae. In such scenarios, an overwhelming majority of people's votes are rendered irrelevant. Comparing Canada and Canadian jurisdictions to middle-eastern ones, is not a true comparision, IMO, where religious fanaticism is a legitimate political voice. Can you imagine some political party campaigning on some extreme religious platform? How serious will they be taken? Look at how this non-issue of funding for faith based schools has polarized the few in favour, with most pragmatic people against, seeing it as a the non-relevant issue that it is.

My hope is that government may take on a more pragmatic aproach, dealing with real issues, reflecting cross sections of the populace, as they arise.

McGuinty's health charge and broken tax promise would not have happened under such a system. I'm also hopefull that it loosens party discipline and allow freer votes on key issues, where people deserve to be heard, rather than whether their local representative will be kicked out of party caucus if the don't tow the party line.

Am I being a little overly optimistic? Maybe. But I'm tired of what we have. There needs to be some additional checks and balances somewhere along the line. The additional MPPs will bring the total back to where it was prior to Mike Harris's change to follow federal riding borders anyway. I'm hopeful that the list candidates will not need the same expense budgets as they do not need to maintain consitutency offices to address local concerns.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Good post, Yossarian.

As it is now, people can make their decisions based on the information that's available for it. Yet, I think Elections Ontario missed the boat by not generating more pros vs cons information here.

There simply has to be more dialogue at all levels that's privy to the general public. It's far too easy to take either extremist side of this debate. There simply isn't enough information right now.

Cheers.

[franko]

As I see it, we are not ready to change the system simply because the debate is just starting. 'Twould have been better to tell people that "the move is afoot" and that within the time frame between this election and the next it will be discussed, then put to a vote.

Instead, we have heard little about it (I would know -- I'm somewhat of a political idiot junkie. The rhetoric just started to crank up and proper dialoge and debate is sorely lacking. Instead we have both sides of the spectrum bringing forth gloom and doom scenarios.

If MPP is voted in there will be 129 seats in the Legislature, which at the outset causes all sorts of funding problems: 43% increase in salries, staffing, expenses, etc, office costs . . . for what? Taking hte results of last election, it would have meant that the Liberals would have wound up with ~60 seats, the Conservatives with ~45, NDP with ~19, and 5 seats would have been up for grabs between the rest (I imagine that the Greens would have received a seat or two and the major parties one each more or something like that).

I think that those nominated by the parties would simply be patronage hacks and that not much would be accomplished . . .though with the NDP holding the balance of power in perpetuity we'd be even more government regulated . . . and taxed, believe me . . . Mcguinty's tax wouldh ave gone through because he'd have given the NDP something in trade.

I like the French system if things must change. Either that, or a system by which even a minority governmetn can govern for 4 years without the fear of being turfed out at a whim . . . then get turfed out by the electorate.

[Cranky]

To focus people on what will happen under this system I should call a news conference, wear a spiffy Nazi uniform short of the Swastika and praise the new ability of the far right to "finally voice our opinion that has been silenced by the oppression of the minorities". Then the next day, call another press conference and announce the formation of the United Muslim Party and how it will finally "help us to get our RIGHTS to Sharia Law and faith based schooling". The third day, I will call yet another press conference, bring a 10 foot high poster of Lenin and cry out the need to "FREE the workers in Ontario from the oppressive blood sucking capitalists". If this doesn't wake people up to what WILL happen, NOTHING will.

As for getting "justice". Pffft...that's a joke and a half. By definition, a minority government needs to form a coalition with the fringe parties in order to govern. NAck room deals will rule the day. Isn't that wonderful? The minority parties will hold the balance of power so THEIR voice will have a far more weight. And of course, it will do wonders for social unity. I am sure that there will be a lot of "understanding" for every minorities grasp for power.

I well say it here and now, if the balance of power is held by religious, far left wing or ethnic based parties, I will support and finance far right wing groups. And I will bet the house that I will not be the only one. This will do WONDERS for our social cohesion. Yuppp........


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


And here is what Italien politics look like......don't laugh.....

Coalitions
House of Freedoms (Casa delle Libertà)
The Union (L'Unione)

[edit] Major
More than 4% at the 2006 general elections (or at least 30 MPs):

Forza Italia (Forward Italy)
Democrats of the Left (Democratici di Sinistra)
National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale)
Democracy is Freedom – Daisy (Democrazia è Libertà – La Margherita)
Union of Christian and Centre Democrats (Unione dei Democratici Cristiani)
Communist Refoundation Party (Partito della Rifondazione Comunista)
Lega Nord (North League)

[edit] Minor
Between 0.5% and 4% at the 2006 general elections (or at least 5 MPs):

Italy of Values (Italia dei Valori)
Party of Italian Communists (Partito dei Comunisti Italiani)
Federation of the Greens (Federazione dei Verdi)
Italian Democratic Socialists (Socialisti Democratici Italiani)
Italian Radicals (Radicali Italiani)
UDEUR Populars (Popolari UDEUR)
Movement for Autonomy (Movimento per l'Autonomia)
Christian Democracy for the Autonomies (Democrazia Cristiana per le Autonomie)
Pensioners' Party (Partito dei Pensionati)
Tricolour Flame (Fiamma Tricolore)
Social Action (Azione Sociale)

[edit] Micro
Less then 0.5% at the 2006 general elections (or less than 5 MPs):

Liberal Democrats (Liberaldemocratici)
New Italian Socialist Party (Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano)
Italian Republican Party (Partito Repubblicano Italiano)
Italian Democratic Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Democratico Italiano)
European Republican Movement (Movimento Repubblicani Europei)
Liberal Reformers (Riformatori Liberali)
Democratic Republicans (Repubblicani Democratici)
Middle-of-the-Road Italy (Italia di Mezzo)
Italians in the World (Italiani nel Mondo)
United Consumers (Consumatori Uniti)
The Italian Socialists (I Socialisti Italiani)
Consumers' List (Lista Consumatori)
Italian Liberal Party (Partito Liberale Italiano)
Federation of Italian Liberals (Federazione dei Liberali Italiani)
New Force (Forza Nuova)
National Social Front (Fronte Sociale Nazionale)

[edit] Regional
More than 1% in the last regional election:

Valdotanian Union (Union Valdôtaine)
Valdotanian Renewal (Renouveau Valdôtain)
Edelweiss Aosta Valley (Stella Alpina Val d'Aosta)
Autonomist Federation (Fédération Autonomiste)
South Tyrolean People's Party (Südtiroler Volkspartei)
Union for South Tyrol (Union für Südtirol)
The Libertarians (Die Freiheitlichen)
Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party (Partito Autonomista Trentino Tirolese)
Autonomist Trentino (Trentino Autonomista)
North-East Project (Progetto Nord-Est)
Veneto Front League (Liga Fronte Veneto)
Southern Democratic Party (Partito Democratico Meridionale)
Sardinia Project (Progetto Sardegna)
Sardinian Reformers (Riformatori Sardi)
Sardinian People's Party (Partito del Popolo Sardo)
Sardinian Democratic Union (Unione Democratica Sarda)
Sardinian Action Party (Partito Sardo d'Azione)
New Sicily (Nuova Sicilia)

[edit] Italians abroad
Italian Associations in South America (Associazioni Italiane in Sud America)

[edit] Former
Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano)
Italian Reform Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Riformista Italiano)
Italian People's Party (old) (Partito Popolare Italiano)
Italian Communist Party (Partito Comunista Italiano)
Fascist National Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista)
Christian Democracy (Democrazia Cristiana)
Italian Liberal Party (Partito Liberale Italiano)
Action Party (Partito d'Azione)
Labour Democratic Party (Partito Democratico del Lavoro)
Uomo Qualunque Front (Fronte Uomo Qualunque)
Italian Democratic Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Democratico Italiano)
Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano)
Monarchist National Party (Partito Nazionale Monarchico)
People's Monarchist Party (Partito Monarchico Popolare)
Italian Democratic Party of Monarchist Unity (Partito Democratico Italiano di Unità Monarchica)
Radical Party (Partito Radicale)
Unified Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Unificato)
Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (Partito Socialista di Unità Proletaria)
Proletarian Unity Party (Partito di Unità Proletaria)
Proletarian Democracy (Democrazia Proletaria)
Democratic Party of the Left (Partito Democratico della Sinistra)
Democratic Alliance (Alleanza Democratica)
Movement for Democracy – The Net (Movimento per la Democrazia – La Rete)
Patto Segni (Patto Segni)
Italian People's Party (Partito Popolare Italiano)
Christian Democratic Centre (Centro Cristiano Democratico)
United Christian Democrats (Cristiani Democratici Uniti)
Italian Socialists (Socialisti Italiani)
Democratic Union (Unione Democratica)
Italian Renewal (Rinnovamento Italiano)
The Democrats (I Democratici)
Democratic Union for the Republic (Unione Democratica per la Repubblica)
European Democracy (Democrazia Europea)


.

[franko]

Going a little overboard, aren't you HA? Only 4 parties would share the seats -- ther fringe guys would never get enough.

Interesting if this were federal politics, though. Based on the last election (with no extra seats given, just what there is based on percentages), parliament would look thusly:

	actual	%	projected
Cons	124	36.2	112
Libs	103	30.2	93
NDP	29	17.4	54
Bloc	51	10.5	32
Green	0	4.5	14

Big winners: NDP, Green.
Big losers: Bloc

[Cranky]

franko said:

Going a little overboard, aren't you HA? Only 4 parties would share the seats -- ther fringe guys would never get enough.

Interesting if this were federal politics, though. Based on the last election (with no extra seats given, just what there is based on percentages), parliament would look thusly:

	actual	%	projected
Cons	124	36.2	112
Libs	103	30.2	93
NDP	29	17.4	54
Bloc	51	10.5	32
Green	0	4.5	14

Big winners: NDP, Green.
Big losers: Bloc

I'm going overboard? You want to bet on that? Do you think that there is not enough Christians to form a party? 3 lousy percent of the population? Or enough Muslims to form a party? There are 450,000 Muslim in Ontario and RAPIDLY growing my friend. Or enough gays to form a party? Or enough right wing nuts to form a party? Do you think that the minute the Christian Coalition yields political power that the Muslim Party will NOT form? And if the Muslim Party forms that the Jewish party does not spring up? And do you really believe that if the Christan party demands anti-Abortion legislation and gets it for THEIR support of the party du jour, the Muslim party will not see this as an opportunity to get "fair" representation for THEIR faith and outlook?

The stark reality is that people do not get motivated to drop their veneer of civility if they believe that everyone is playing by the same rules. The minute people see that one group is getting "ahead" in power and prestige, then they WILL react to balance the perceived injustice. Tribal instinct is far, far greater then social cohesion.

I ask you a simple and honest question. If the "Mulsim party" succeds in getting non criminal Sharia law, will you not support a party that opposes it? If you answer yes, then you are supporting anti-ethnic politics. So much for social cohesion and understanding.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

I'm going overboard? You want to bet on that? Do you think that there is not enough Christians to form a party? 3 lousy percent of the population?

7-10% of Canadians identify themselves as evangelical Christian. You know, people who support Harper, ior in the States would support Bush. Except . . . it doesn't work that way. As many evangelicals in the States voted against Bush as voted for him (contrary to what you may have heard in the media, the "red states" are not all made that way by backwoods fundamentalist non-thinkers). As many evangelicals in Canada voted against the Conservatives in the last federal election as for them -- in fact, I'd wager (if I were a betting man) that even more voted against the Conservatives than for.

HA -- this is a culture where people just don't see eye to eye -- that's why there are about a billion different denominations. The slightest thing sends 'em packing to a different church. If you think that people can agree on one candidate or party . . . think again!

In fact, there are already at least 2 right-of-right "Christian" parties -- the Family Coalition Party and the Crhistian Heritage Party (that's just off the top of my head). Each group gets about as many votes as the Communist Party. You do not need to worry about the balance of power in Christian hands.

Or enough Muslims to form a party? There are 450,000 Muslim in Ontario and RAPIDLY growing my friend.

First generation Muslims may vote for "their" party, but as immigrants settle in [second generation] they tend to integrate better into the mainstream of society. Further, if there was fear that Muslims would get enough votes to be recognized as a party/hold seats due to the percentage, non-Muslims would be spurred to vote, thereby lowering the percentage.

Or enough gays to form a party? Or enough right wing nuts to form a party?

There are enough to form a party, but not enough to garner percentage. The bigger fear is that they would insi . . . insu . . . push their way onto the second tier list and be appointed to the Legislature and have power that way.

Tribal instinct is far, far greater then social cohesion.

That is very true.

I ask you a simple and honest question. If the "Mulsim party" succeds in getting non criminal Sharia law, will you not support a party that opposes it? If you answer yes, then you are supporting anti-ethnic politics. So much for social cohesion and understanding.

I already support anti-ethnic politics -- as do most peole. Even those who are in favour of ethnic politics are opposed as soon as it affects them!

[Cranky]

franko said:

In fact, there are already at least 2 right-of-right "Christian" parties -- the Family Coalition Party and the Crhistian Heritage Party (that's just off the top of my head). Each group gets about as many votes as the Communist Party. You do not need to worry about the balance of power in Christian hands.

I don't buy the argument that those two groups will not grow in size in an increasingly fractious enviroment that the MMP system nourishes. Today, those people have no choice but to vote Liberal, NDP or Conservative, but tomorrow, they can have a party that represents THEIR SPECIFIC voice. Better yet, even as a minority party, they will have far more influence than just being just one of the herd in the other three.

franko said:

First generation Muslims may vote for "their" party, but as immigrants settle in [second generation] they tend to integrate better into the mainstream of society. Further, if there was fear that Muslims would get enough votes to be recognized as a party/hold seats due to the percentage, non-Muslims would be spurred to vote, thereby lowering the percentage.

Do you know how fast the Muslim population is growing in Ontario? The Canadian stats are...255,000 in 1991.....650,000 in 2001.....Ontario has 62% and GROWING percentage. Can you tell me what percentage by the NEXT ELECTION in 2010? How about 2014? Any questions?

Secondly, when the Greek Orthodox came to my door to "save" me, face a mother can never love and a growl made them scurry to the safety of baby Jesus. (sic) My neighbor three doors down is Muslim and he has been harassed to participate and donate to the point where man in Western clothes have told him to his face that he is turning away from his faith and becoming a Canadianized savage. Yes, savage. Good thing we have tall trees and can swing to each others house.

franko said:

I already support anti-ethnic politics -- as do most peole. Even those who are in favour of ethnic politics are opposed as soon as it affects them!

They oppose them because we can, they can. All the parties are running pretty much a centrist platform other then the Green party (they are running with mirrors and self delusion). You are underestimating what people will do when confronted with increasing fractiousness and perceived injustice. The minority parties who are going to gain the vote will exploit and enrage to no end. It's about votes and votes are POWER.

Lastly....

If you are debating the issues, for the sake of a little HA'ian torture, I get it. But if you are debating as a supporter of the MMP system, then tell me, if you agree with my statement of tribalism, then how can you not see how MMP system will serve to increasing fracture our society? Think about this. This forum is the essance of tribalism over the insignificant. Will tribalism be LESS significant with life altering issues? I think not.

[Skilly]

Ahhhhh Tequila Sheila ....

disgruntled70shab said:

What do the burka wearing Muslims, evangelical Christians and the ultra-orthodox Jews have in common?

A little racist are we Sheila .... who cares what they wear or how orthodox they are ... the point could have been made without the banter.

The fear that a fanatic few are out to proselytize the world is not unique to a single religion, nor is it solely a Canadian problem. But if Ontario's electoral system is changed, we may find ourselves joining those countries where a vocal, organized minority dictates for the majority.

You mean countries like ... ohhh, I don't know, say ... Canada!! Sheila have you heard of the Bloc Quebecois??

NEW SYSTEM

The new system would mean that all parties with more than 3% of the vote in a general election would choose almost one-third of the members of the legislature. In the proposed mix, voters would directly elect 90 MPPs while 39 additional MPPs would be chosen from party lists.

I am looking at this as an outsider, and this thread is the first I heard of it ...but why create 39 additional seats? Have the vote. Then calculate how many seats a party would have proportionally and then add only those seats. For example, let's say the vote goes Conservatives receive 40% of the vote, Liberals 30%, NDP 20%, and Green 10%. Now out of the 93 seats (why didn't they just make it 100 seats for easy math ...shesshhh) let's say the Conservative win 45, the Liberals win 25, the NDP win 23, and the Green win none. Well the Conservative would get no extra seats (proportionally they have already got almost 50% of the seats) , the Liberals get 3 extra seats, the NDP would get no extra seats, and the greens would get 9 seats. You'd only need to create 12 extra seats (not 39).

The proportional system institutionalizes extremist influence. Picture a minority parliament where a party with 3% of the vote is in control. That is exactly what is being proposed.

And the same thing can happen federally in a minority. Right now the country gets held at ransom by 10% of the voting public ... and during the Liiberal minority most of the country thought the the country was being held at ransom by 1.4% of the population (Newfoundland).

But the current deficit results from a nomination process controlled by political parties. Robbing citizens of their rights in favour of political parties will never address the power imbalance.

The new mixed system inserts another level of potential discrimination. To be elected by proportional vote, you must be included on a party list. Independent thinkers need not apply. The proposal gives new meaning to the term, party favours.

I really don't understand this arguement. You must be on a party list? Right now you have to be a "card carrying member" to get nominated. (you can hold more than one card though), nominations are at the mercy of the party leader. If he doesn't want you on "his/her" team, then he doesn't have to support the nomination. You think that a party leader is going to let a maverick join his team openly. In the new system Independants can still run, or should be allowed anyway ... if they win the seat they win the seat .... so independant thinkers can run independantly.

The Ontario referendum is woefully silent on how the selection to the party list is determined. Elections Ontario says every political party would nominate candidates in advance of the election and describe how they were chosen. But one thing is clear. The party controls the List.

The party controls the list now too .... afterall it is the party that controls the nominations. If I don't have a Liberal card , I have no say in who is nominated. I may want my next door neighbour to run, but the party has to accept him as apart of their team.

Anyone who thinks this is good for democracy is either naive or nuts.

And anyone who doesn't think the system, to a lesser degree, doesn't already exist is blind.

The current system, with a single party winning successive majorities with a minority of public support, is ripe for reform. But there are better reform models around the world. In France, for example, two votes are held to achieve a consensus. The first round eliminates all but the two major candidates. The second, a week later, is a runoff between the contenders, guaranteeing an outcome with majority public support.

France? ... Really? ... So we always want a majority in a referndum style election. That would promote poor voter turn-out (worse than now for sure). It is also the American way .. hmmmmm wonder why she never used that analogy?? The only thing wrong with the way we vote now is that we have no vote for the PM, unless you live in his political district. In St. John's, I may hate Norm Doyle and love Steven Harper ... so I am forced to vote for a guy I hate to give the PM I want my vote? Or conversely, I may like Norm Doyle and think he is the best politician that ever lived, but not like his leader. So again I am let feeling disenfranchised because I can't vote for who I want to be PM. That is crazy.

Is a party better placed to elect legislators than the people?

Sheila, you never could see the forest through all the trees ... you just said you were in favour of 2 votes to determine a PM ... well after the vote is held and it is determined how many extra seats each party will get. Well have another vote (ohhh I don't know, say like some municipalities do .... a list of 12 candidates and ask the elcetorate to choose 5 for example) to determine who gets the seats.

beware of politicians bearing gifts.

Yes, I agree ... gifts like a fairer equalization scheme and relif on non-renewable resources, to mention a few.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

I don't buy the argument that those two groups will not grow in size in an increasingly fractious enviroment that the MMP system nourishes. Today, those people have no choice but to vote Liberal, NDP or Conservative, but tomorrow, they can have a party that represents THEIR SPECIFIC voice. Better yet, even as a minority party, they will have far more influence than just being just one of the herd in the other three.

The specific Christian culture (just Christian, as that is what I know) does not allow for it -- it is just too fractured. Too detailed for here (too lazy to try?) -- will you trust me on this point?

My neighbor three doors down is Muslim and he has been harassed to participate and donate to the point where man in Western clothes have told him to his face that he is turning away from his faith and becoming a Canadianized savage. Yes, savage.

Is that not what I said? So a small minority goes overboard, but 2nd generation Canadians become Canadianlike. Go figure. And since we go into the polling station alone, we vote for who we want.

If you are debating the issues, for the sake of a little HA'ian torture, I get it.

Good.

[franko]

skilly said:

Ahhhhh Tequila Sheila ....

Ah, Grasshopper:

I am looking at this as an outsider, and this thread is the first I heard of it ...but why create 39 additional seats? Have the vote. Then calculate how many seats a party would have proportionally and then add only those seats.

You would then have a different number of people "appointed" every election . . . this at least gives some stability.

out of the 93 seats (why didn't they just make it 100 seats for easy math ...shesshhh)

Based on population, just like in Newfoundland.

And the same thing can happen federally in a minority. Right now the country gets held at ransom by 10% of the voting public ... and during the Liiberal minority most of the country thought the the country was being held at ransom by 1.4% of the population (Newfoundland).
Which is why HA has such problems with the system.

You must be on a party list?

There are 39 seats up for appointment. The parties must "nominate" people for these seats before the election; then they choose from the nominees following the election.

In the new system Independants can still run, or should be allowed anyway ... if they win the seat they win the seat .... so independant thinkers can run independantly.

But independents rarely win, as their voice is so small . . . and still would be even with MMP.

So we always want a majority in a referndum style election. That would promote poor voter turn-out (worse than now for sure). It is also the American way

No, it's a bit different -- there is a run-off to decide between the two top vote-getters in every riding.

The only thing wrong with the way we vote now is that we have no vote for the PM, unless you live in his political district. In St. John's, I may hate Norm Doyle and love Steven Harper ... so I am forced to vote for a guy I hate to give the PM I want my vote? Or conversely, I may like Norm Doyle and think he is the best politician that ever lived, but not like his leader. So again I am let feeling disenfranchised because I can't vote for who I want to be PM. That is crazy.

That is one of the arguments for MPP. I think it what it does is lead to a more US-style election rather than away from: vote for PM and vote for MP.

[Skilly]

Yes ... and I would support an MPP style system. Just not the one explained here. I have a problem with the arbitratily chosen 39 seats. I prefer like I said ... and yes it would change each election, but only slightly, and ar least it changes based on the electorates wishes (ie their votes).

Btw ... Newfoundland's population has been decreasing for the past 15 years. We still have 48 seats in our legislature. If the 93 seats are based on population, then either Ontario has a bigger electorate/MLA (we call it MHA) mandated than Newfoundland, or Newfoundland need to trim down that legislature.

93 people to govern 14 million as compared to 48 to govern 500,000 .... obviously there is somethign more at play than just population. I know that federally our seats are population based, although the numbers will never drop for the provinces with few seats ....

... still I don't see a problem with the legislature having 93 permanent seats, and then based on percentage of vote adding a small few, but not 39. (way too much and mathmatically I don't see how adding a known number to the legislature makes the proportion actually work out?)

[franko]

This election there will be 107 MLAs.

If this passes (don't think so but who knows?) there'll be 90 elected plus 39 "appointed". Too many. Big $ going to politicians. Still nothing done in the legislature . . . probably less, in fact.