Last night 100% of Canadians made a choice. 42% percent chose to abstain, 22% chose the conservatives, 15% chose the liberals, 10% chose the NDP, 6% chose the Bloc Quebecois, 4% chose the Green party, and the rest chose Bill Casey and some other people.
So the winning party is a split between "i don't care", "my vote doesn't matter", "i'm too lazy", "none of the above" and "I didn't have the proper ID so Elections Canada followed the unconstitutional law of turning me away from the voting booth despite my right to vote as a Canadian citizen". This doesn't matter though because in this country, as in most western democracies, representing 22% of the country is all you need to become the governing party, while the rest of us are left unrepresented (46%) or in opposition to the government (31%).
A vote of no confidence should be mandatory on the federal ballot to provide those who wish to vote against all choices with true representation on the ballot. If your riding votes no confidence, then all ridings in such position hold a re-election until the majority of people decide on someone suitable to represent their riding in government. This could increase the incentive for voter participation without any insane scheme to infringe on my right to choose...not to vote.
One other comment on last night: In what country can a party garner 10% of popular vote and earn 16% of parliament seats, while another party can garner 7% of popular vote and earn 0% of parliament seats? This one and thats a good thing. All politics should be local and this stat is a good representation of how that has worked for Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is a party that can hold enough seats in parliament to be significant, and its representatives work for a party that represents the needs of its constituents. The rest of us are left being represented by whichever political ideology we are most aligned with; our representatives prioritize towing the party line over the needs of their riding. Bill Casey was the exception that proved this rule.
If the Green Party cannot get one riding to support one of their candidates than too bad. I've heard a bit of commentary suggesting that the number of seats in parliament should represent the popular vote, but this ignores what a member of parliament does: represents their district in the federal government. Its too bad each province couldn't have their own Bloc Quebecois. Imagine, the Meitheal Nova Scotia!
46 comments:
I think a representive system based on the popular vote would cut down on professionalism in politics a significant amount.
All Australians must vote in national elections. It is compulsory. I like this.
We have a representative system based on popular vote...the MP represents the popular vote of his district.
Of course you like compulsory voting; you have absolutely no recognition of individual rights, unless its a woman's right to choose.
The representitive system was good enough for a bunch of propertied white men who basically all thought the same way, but it decidedly less representive now that the franchise has been expanded.
I like compulsory voting because it forces the individual to get off his lazy ass and stop playing video games.
No recognition of indivudals rights? Would you like to back that up with something? I am for virtually all of the Bill of Rights in the constitution.
Right to private property.
You except one! Me rejecting private property as a right is not the same as me rejecting all the rights of an individual but one!
8 of 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are directly linked to the right to private property.
Such as? I THOUGHT THEY WERE ENACTED TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT!
This I will have to answer when I have more time.
hmm Chris- you do not beleive in the right to own property? How do you define property? Do you own anything? Do you consider everything in your possession as communal?
The right to acquire a space for personal living is critical.
I think that the day we stop globalization and reverty back to a more local economy our rights will b better defined and protected. Western societies in general are too consumed with consuming cheaply and the people do not see how this infringes on their soverign rights. Look at Iceland.
Well, consuming doesn't infringe on their rights. Poor monetary policy again is what is destroying Iceland. We will see this occur in the US in the next 5 to 10 years, or sooner if the government doesn't stop spending.
Hi Dad,
This is where the left is traditionally and presently weak: the discussion of what a non-wage, non-capital, non-monetary sytem would look like. Lenin commented on this problem as he took the helm and was one of the primary reasons that he call for a return to a semi-capitalist economy.
Yes, I believe in personal property, but I think that private property, when wages are not high enough, leads to exploitation and thus revolutionary politics.
Josh, please! It's Iceland for crying out loud! They follow the lead of the center! That's how empires work! The satellites and fringes (ie Iceland) follow the lead of the capital state. This is, of course, fatal for a state like Iceland, because their trade is crucial to the very survial of the country. If millions of income generators were to suddenly disapper in Iceland, assuming the CURRENT monetary policy, the entire country would be completely screwed.
"They follow the lead of the center! That's how empires work! The satellites and fringes (ie Iceland) follow the lead of the capital state."
What about Switzerland?
" I think that private property, when wages are not high enough, leads to exploitation and thus revolutionary politics."
So...only countries with high wages are able to enjoy the right of private property?
In the long-run, yes.
Again, I ask you, Josh: How many people in the world? Answer my question.
over 6 billion, i answered the first time you asked me.
I wasn't aware rights should only be provided to the rich. Thanks for clarifying that to me.
CHINA IS AN AUTHORITARIAN STATE. AMERICAN COMPANIES MOVED THERE. THEY ARE IMPLICITLY AND SOMETIMES EXPLICITLY AGAINST RIGHTS FOR WORKERS>
Second question: How many people in the developed world, Josh?
I don't know.
What does China's government have to do with the right to private property?
How many people in the undeveloped world, Josh? C'mon, I want to know how far wages are going to drop in your wonderful free market.
Hiring workers in China without demanding democratic governance shows a disregard for the constitution and for democracy. In other words, profits over people.
and principle.
If wages drop, prices will too.
Its not how much, but how much you can buy.
"Hiring workers in China without demanding democratic governance shows a disregard for the constitution and for democracy"
Not really. The constitution limits government, it doesn't tell business not to trade and do business with other countries with governments in place they do not like.
Also, profits are good for people. Profits provided capital, which allow companies to invest to develop new products, which they want to sell to people, and in order to sell products to people, people need to make decent wages...
Thats why in a free market, the value of wages will come up more than they will come down. Business depends on people being able to afford their products.
"Not really. The constitution limits government, it doesn't tell business not to trade and do business with other countries with governments in place they do not like."
Yes, but these same companies are lecturing the public on rights and the 'free market'. Doing business in an authoritarian market contradicts their position and message.
"Also, profits are good for people. Profits provided capital, which allow companies to invest to develop new products, which they want to sell to people, and in order to sell products to people, people need to make decent wages..."
Yes, and in China people are not making decent wages.
"Thats why in a free market, the value of wages will come up more than they will come down. Business depends on people being able to afford their products."
That was the general assumption and the general reason American capitalism did not collapsed into communism over the last 60 years, but now things have changed. The corporations now think it is right to pay "the market wage", ie slave wage.
"these same companies are lecturing the public on rights and the 'free market'."
Please reference.
"Yes, and in China people are not making decent wages."
China is not a free market.
"corporations now think it is right to pay "the market wage"
Haven't they always thought that?
"Please reference."
You. The corporations simultaneous manipulate the government and have ties to small business. Many CEOS and executives were small business owners at one point, so they basically pay money to support corporate insterests and small business ideology: I.E. your ideology.
"China is not a free market."
There never has been a free market. "Free market" is just a catchy slogan.
China is authoritarian and anti-freedom.
"Haven't they always thought that?"
Nope. During the cold war they feared communist take-overs of government, strikes, and foreign ideologies. Now that they have an authoritarian regime that bans strikes in its pocket they feel confident enough to drive wages down. This is why FDR destroyed the communist party. He saw the New Deal as a necessary action.
"Many CEOS and executives were small business owners at one point, so they basically pay money to support corporate insterests and small business ideology: I.E. your ideology."
Yet, they're all supporting the most liberal, left-leaning, socialist Presidential Candidate ever. Hmmm...
"China is authoritarian and anti-freedom."
Perhaps if it was pro-freedom and pro-market, the Chinese people would make more money.
"He saw the New Deal as a necessary action."
Yes, just like socializing the entire financial industry and providing welfare to the rich. Just like pumping billions of dollars into banks hoping they will loan it out to consumers so that they will keep buying. But, just like in the depression, the banks will not loan it out, they will hoard it, inflation will occur, and consumers(workers) will be worse off.
"Yet, they're all supporting the most liberal, left-leaning, socialist Presidential Candidate ever. Hmmm..."
Yup. It's called changing the economy slowly. Deng did much the same to China starting in 1980. A slow, gradual trasition from Maoism to capitalism. The corporations do not want sudden change. They want slow change.
"Perhaps if it was pro-freedom and pro-market, the Chinese people would make more money."
Again, because there are so many Chinese, their unions would be weak and uneffective. Again, what's the population of the world, Josh?
"Yes, just like socializing the entire financial industry and providing welfare to the rich."
Yes, capitalist welfarism started just about then, too. Unfortunately, the financial system was not socialized until 1995, as you said.
"Just like pumping billions of dollars into banks hoping they will loan it out to consumers so that they will keep buying."
Sorry, the bank failures of 1929 were private banks without insurance.
"But, just like in the depression, the banks will not loan it out, they will hoard it, inflation will occur, and consumers(workers) will be worse off."
The economy is a bit different than in 1929. There is a lot of residual wealth laying around. And there is still a significantly big spending class.
"Yup. It's called changing the economy slowly. Deng did much the same to China starting in 1980. A slow, gradual trasition from Maoism to capitalism. The corporations do not want sudden change. They want slow change."
My point was that if the big corporation truly benefited from free market capitalism, Ron Paul would be on the road to being president right now.
"My point was that if the big corporation truly benefited from free market capitalism, Ron Paul would be on the road to being president right now."
Well that's been my point all along.
I've said over and over that big corporations manipulate and use the government, you just haven't been listening.
"the bank failures of 1929 were private banks without insurance."
You will see this come as well as smaller banks are already complaining that they do not have access to the welfare provide to the large banks. They are saying the will not be able to compete.
"The economy is a bit different than in 1929. There is a lot of residual wealth laying around. And there is still a significantly big spending class."
There is no true wealth in the USA as it is all borrowed. The spending class have been spending credit which is being tightened more and more and more. Noone in the US has any real savings to invest in the economy. Warren Buffett is trying hard though. The spending class is dissapearing. Many are predicting the worst Christmas in decades for retailers, some saying this will be the last of the spending spree Christmas tradition that has occured since the 1940s. The experts are saying this will be like no other depression in history.
"I've said over and over that big corporations manipulate and use the government, you just haven't been listening."
Then why are free markets bad?
"There is no true wealth in the USA as it is all borrowed. The spending class have been spending credit which is being tightened more and more and more."
Again, you are not reading very well. There was true wealth in the USA when there lots of manufacturing jobs. It is the 18 million jobs lost since 2000 that has caused this mess, because those jobs represented real wealth in North America. The people who use credit to supplement their income dramatically, they have not been the majority, and were not the majority in 1995.
You see, I am creating real wealth. I work; I am paid. If I want to use 1600 worth of credit to buy a camera now, then I am justified. I am using a credit card as a tool for buying early. However, if my job were to suddenly disappear, I woudld have a hard time paying back that loan.
"Then why are free markets bad?"
Because small businesses pay small wages and because modern production tends to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Did you read those excerpts from Engels, or did you just comment?
"There was true wealth in the USA when there lots of manufacturing jobs."
Why does this represent true wealth for a country?
"modern production tends to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands."
But this is what happens with socialism.
Um, I have to work really soon, so let's keep to the topics we have been discussing hitherto. Socialism leading to authoritarian government is just too big of a topic to start right now.
Maybe tonight.
I'm just pointing out, the alternative doesn't alleviate the problem you're suggest free markets cause. Although, I'm not convinced free markets cause this problem.
Factory production leads to centralization of production! WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY! HELLO! FACTORY PRODUCTION IS THE RESULT OF CAPITALISM! EVEN IN A FREE MARKET THERE WOULD BE FACTORY PRODUCTION! ECONOMIES OF SCALE DEMAND IT!
Yes, those who are proven most capable are able to own factories and create jobs in a free market. SO?
Pish posh. The corporations went public a long time ago. It is not owned by an idle class of investors, which means oligarchy, as is the present case.
It is the very nature of factory production that leads to monopoly and oligarchy, which means the little guy can't become a competitor easily. In the long-term, this means wages are driven, because A MULITUDE of new companies can not enter and exist the market, thereby eroding the power of the monopolies. The actual economics of the market is that investment is not fast enough to fufill the promises of free market evangelists. Small companies simply do not appear frequently enough to stop the downward drive on salaries and wages.
Post a Comment