N/A

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Yes, it's exactly the same.  Wynne isn't crying for us, she is crying for her.  Because she lost.

Wynne's policy, proposals, positions and communications are about her and the Liberals getting elected.  Nothing more.

The irony here is that if Ford wins a majority, Horwath will find herself in a position to defend Kathleen Wynne programs that Ford will cut

Free tuition, OHIP +, Full Day Kindergarden, Party subsidy and the list goes on.

SocialJustice101

Ken Burch wrote:
Why are you so invested in the idea that it's never possible for the NDP to persuade the electorate, on the merits of its program or ideas, that it's a better choice than the Liberals?

Are the current NDP programs and ideas wastly different from previous unsuccessul NDP campaigns?   Did Horwath suddenly become a super campaigner?    Or maybe the orange wave had something to do with unsually high personal negatives of both Wynne and Ford?

SocialJustice101

Here's something to ponder:  Wynne is Ontario's first female Premier, and Ontario's first LGBT Premier.

Mighty Middle

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Here's something to ponder:  Wynne is Ontario's first female Premier, and Ontario's first LGBT Premier.

and Horwath took full advatage of all of the vile and misogynst attacks directed at Kathleen Wynne by third party conservative groups.

Horwath better be prepared when these same groups aim their hatred towards her now that Wynne is going out the door. and Ford will do NOTHING to tone it down. Just like Horwath did when the stuff was flung at Wynne.

SocialJustice101

Apparently, Canada has had 8 female Premiers, and only 1 of them was re-elected.  The rest were defeated or resigned in the middle of their term due to low poll numbers.    I suspect the public (consciously or subconsciously) is less likely to perceive women as competent managers of the economy and other matters.   

quizzical

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Here's something to ponder:  Wynne is Ontario's first female Premier, and Ontario's first LGBT Premier.

and Horwath took full advatage of all of the vile and misogynst attacks directed at Kathleen Wynne by third party conservative groups.

Horwath better be prepared when these same groups aim their hatred towards her now that Wynne is going out the door. and Ford will do NOTNING to tone it down. Just like Horwath did when the stuff was flung at Wynne.

how did she take advantage?

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Apparently, Canada has had 8 female Premiers, and only 1 of them was re-elected.  The rest were defeated or resigned in the middle of their term due to low poll numbers.    I suspect the public (consciously or subconsciously) is less likely to perceive women as competent managers of the economy and other matters.   

They obviously have not read about Boudicca, Cleopatra, Queen Theodora, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, etc...

Mighty Middle

quizzical wrote:

how did she take advantage?

She took advantage of the anger directed at Wynne (by Ontario Proud) to ratchet up her own rhetoric against Wynne. So it was twice the amount of anger amplified, feeded mostly by Ontario Proud. And Andrea rode this wave of anger right into 2nd place and quite possibly as Premier. Or at the very least leader of the official opposition.

Now I don't blame Andrea for taking advantage of the situation, and politician would. As you need to damage your  opponent as much as possible. But Ontario Proud will be turning their attention next on Andrea, and if you think what happened to Wynne was bad, it will be worse of Andrea because they are now in their groove and are better mobilized to attack.

eric johnson

Wynne's astonishing concession, one friggin' week before the election, kablooies the magical hopes of probable Liberal voters.  She kicked her own voters in the gut. There will be no miraculous 15th Round knockout by Loser Wynne. Her idiocy forces the Liberal vote to splinter and my guess is that 70% of them will vote Ford rather than risk Invasion of the Commies. Dooger the Booger owes her big.

 

SocialJustice101

According to a recent Ipsos poll, Lib voters would want their party to prop-up the NDP vs Ford, by a 3-1 margin.   And that's among the remaining Liberal voters.   The percentage should be even higher among regular Liberal voters, a significant portion of who is already backing the ONDP in this election.

JKR

SocialJustice101 wrote:
According to a recent Ipsos poll, Lib voters would want their party to prop-up the NDP vs Ford, by a 3-1 margin.   And that's among the remaining Liberal voters.   The percentage should be even higher among regular Liberal voters, a significant portion of who is already backing the ONDP in this election.

The NDP would win a sizeable majority if instant runoff voting was being used instead of plurality voting. As things stand, the PC's could come in second place and still win a "wrong winner" phoney FPTP majority government.

SocialJustice101

FPTP is horrible.  Without it, there would be no Harper "majority", no Harris "majority", and no chance of a Ford "majority". 

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Wynne is not getting "kicked when she is down".  She's  crying  because she won't be Queen anymore not because she has no where to live or a place to live but no money to see a dentist. It's a luxury that she can cry over something  she was bound to have to leave eventually. Premier has never been a lifetime job. She is crying because she ran a terrible campaign. She is crying for herself not the people of Ontario.

Did you feel the same cynicism when Hillary Clinton cried? on the campaign trail.

Yes of course. Didn't even know she cried. She stole the nomination from Sanders. She's no better than her husband. If she cried it was because Obama robbed her of being first female president then she couldn't even beat the number one asshole in America she was so unpopular. Then she went home to her multiple mansions and a bank account that lets her buy pretty much anything she wants in the entire world.

I don't feel even a teensy tiny bit bad for Wynne or Clinton. Both live with immense privilege. Both authored their own downfalls through arrogance.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

She stole the nomination from Sanders.

How did she do that? By getting more votes? By being more popular than Sanders with African American and Hispanic voters?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Here's something to ponder:  Wynne is Ontario's first female Premier, and Ontario's first LGBT Premier.

and Horwath took full advatage of all of the vile and misogynst attacks directed at Kathleen Wynne by third party conservative groups.

That is a despicable lie and you know it. 

Horvath NEVER, at ANY TIME, EVEN FOR A MOMENT, pandered to homophobia.  And neither she nor her party was the beneficiary of homophobia.

Stop repeating a smear against the most progressive party in Ontario.

Homophobes would have switched from the Liberals to the PC's...they were never going to switch to a party that is MORE pro-LGBTQ than the OLP is. 

The ONDP has gained votes because it was MORE progressive on all issues than the Liberals.  It was only the PC's who benefited from the gaybashing and the polls show they aren't benefiting from it now.

Quit acting like you're the only person on this board who cares about LGBTQ rights.  We're all on the same side on that.

KarlL

Misfit wrote:

I don't know if you noticed but Kathleen Wynne  referred to the other two parties as "Doug Ford and the NDP."

She couldn't refer to Andrea Horwath by her name. You either say Doug Ford and Andrea Horwath or The Progressive Conservatives  and the NDP. 

 

The reasons for that are fairly obvious.  Kathleen Wynne wants to elect as many Liberals as possible even though that number is limited.  Andrea is more popular than the NDP and Doug Ford is less popular than the PCs (and certainly so among potential Liberal voters), hence, KW's critique is of the NDP as a party and of Doug Ford as a leader.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:
She stole the nomination from Sanders.
How did she do that? By getting more votes? By being more popular than Sanders with African American and Hispanic voters?

OK.  Hillary was more popular than Bernie with those groups.  That was mainly due to the fact that she'd been planning to run for president again since losing to Obama in 2008, and, having lost then due to the votes of those groups, she'd been spending eight years paying court to the old-line, now essentially conservative African-American leadership, and doing a good job of implying that that old-line leadership somehow OWED her their support this time-despite the fact that she, as a leading figure in the Democratic Leadership Council, had spent the late Eighties and most of the Nineties arguing that the Democratic Party needed to distance itself from African-American and Latinx-American voters and needed to appease the white backlash by leaving unchallenged the Republican implication that black and brown people were the cause of most crime, most welfare fraud, most drug abuse and most out-of-wedlock births in the U.S.-even though, in reality, most of those who did those things were white.

Hillary got that support even though she'd never stuck her neck out fighting any form of bigotry at any point in her life, and even though she had condemned the use of civil disobedience by the black freedom movement.

Bernie on the other hand hadn't been planning on running for president.  He'd wanted Elizabeth Warren to run, but she'd stayed out(probably having been pressured out by Hillary, who felt personally entitled to be the first woman nominated for president).   So Bernie was left with the choice of running or of accepting that there'd be no progressive candidate for the Democratic nomination.  As a person of the left, he had always been a committed antiracist and committed opponent of all forms of bigotry and social oppression, but he had not publicized this and, as a senator from a state with a miniscule African-American population, he simply hadn't established a personal relationship with many leaders within the communities of color in this country.

In addition-and as a '16 Bernie supporter I am still furious that this happened-Hillary's supporters smeared Bernie's supporters as collectively indifferent to the need to fight institutional bigotry and sexism and homophobia, creating the stereotype of the "Bernie bro"-a mythical figure who acted like some sort of left-wing frat boy(assuming that could even ever be a thing).

Bernie could have said more about race, and should have made much more of an effort to contest the "Super Tuesday" primary states, but there was no meaningful difference between his positions and Hillary's on the "social justice" issues she centered in her campaign(after mainly ignoring in her service in the Senate and her time as First Lady).  But his campaign spoke out against racist police violence before hers did.

Mighty Middle

Pondering wrote:

Yes of course. Didn't even know she cried. She stole the nomination from Sanders. She's no better than her husband. If she cried it was because Obama robbed her of being first female president then she couldn't even beat the number one asshole in America she was so unpopular.

Actually she cried when she was facing off Obama

KarlL

SocialJustice101 wrote:

But Andrea Horwarth is absolutely correct in her statement.   Voting Liberal will not ensure a minority government.   It's much more likely to ensure a Ford majority.

It depends.  The province-wide numbers don't determine who forms the government - the individual riding results do. 

In ridings that are a straight Liberal v. PC fight and in which the NDP isn't a contender, a vote for the Liberals is NOT a vote for Doug Ford and is more likely to lead to an Andrea Horwath minority government and does nothing to detract from an NDP majority if that were in the cards.  Oakville, Halton, Mississauga Lakeshore, Ottawa West-Nepean, Ottawa South and Orleans come quickly to mind but there are others.  If the NDP were well north of 40%, perhaps even some of those would be within range - but at current mid- to high-30s percentage support levels for the NDP, they are not.  Conversely, in NDP v. PC fights, like Essex, most of London, KW, Niagara, Oshawa and so on, a Liberal vote that might otherwise have gone NDP WOULD help Doug Ford.  

I am a Liberal voter and am therefore disclosing my bias.  My riding of Beaches-East York is a straight Liberal v. NDP fight, which the NDP will win and in which I voted Liberal with a clear conscience.  If I lived in Oshawa or Essex or Kenora, I'd vote NDP.  If in Peterborough or Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which are close to being 3-way fights, I would be torn, as though I do not expect the Liberals to hold on, I don't think the NDP has enough support to stop the PCs.

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Horvath NEVER, at ANY TIME, EVEN FOR A MOMENT, pandered to homophobia.  And neither she nor her party was the beneficiary of homophobia.

Then she should not have signed the nomination papers of a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage 12 years ago. It was only after this came to light, did he backtrack, But he shouldn't have been green-lit in the first place

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-south-hespele...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So how did Doug Ford expel his candidates?

By refusing, as Party Leader, to support them.

I suppose Wynne could have refused to support all the Liberal candidates, effectively forcing them to run as independents, or not at all.  That surely wouldn't have been seen as a giant clusterfuck.

Forgive me for continuing a sports analogy (I don't much care for sports) but it's the difference between a baseball team conceding defeat, and the manager kicking all the players off the team and defaulting.

SocialJustice101

As a staunch supporter of the LGBT rights, I would give a break to a candidate who was against same-sex marriage 12 years ago, but now claims to support it.   Many Liberal candidates were against it back then.   And so was Barack Obama, who eventually became the 1st US President to endorse same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruling.    Let people "evolve," whether politically or personally.   We are all products of social conditioning.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Horvath NEVER, at ANY TIME, EVEN FOR A MOMENT, pandered to homophobia.  And neither she nor her party was the beneficiary of homophobia.

Then she should not have signed the nomination papers of a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage 12 years ago. It was only after this came to light, did he backtrack, But he shouldn't have been green-lit in the first place

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-south-hespele...

Didn't know of that ONE incident.   A situation in which one guy was SAID to have expressed anti same-sex marriage views twelve years before he was nominated-views he cleary does not hold now, which is what matters.

THAT's what you've been banging on about? 

The fact that she signed a nominating paper for a candidate who was accused of holding a position, twelve years earlier, in opposition to same-sex marriage-a position the candidate does NOT hold now and may not even have held then?

If he did hold those views then, and had NOT recanted them, then it would have been a mistake.

That does not come remotely close to pandering to homophobia, and it's absurd to suggest that the swing from the OLP to the ONDP was because one candidate may have held a socially conservative position on same-sex marriage at the same time Barack Obama held such a position?

 

 

 

Mighty Middle

SocialJustice101 wrote:

As a staunch supporter of the LGBT rights, I would give a break to a candidate who was against same-sex marriage 12 years ago, but now claims to support it.   Many Liberal candidates were against it back then.   And so was Barack Obama, who eventually became the 1st US President to endorse same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruling.    Let people "evolve," whether politically or personally.   We are all products of social conditioning.

Yeah I agree, but I was just making a point to Ken that sometimes things can slip through the cracks.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

As a staunch supporter of the LGBT rights, I would give a break to a candidate who was against same-sex marriage 12 years ago, but now claims to support it.   Many Liberal candidates were against it back then.   And so was Barack Obama, who eventually became the 1st US President to endorse same-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruling.    Let people "evolve," whether politically or personally.   We are all products of social conditioning.

Yeah I agree, but I was just making a point to Ken that sometimes things can slip through the cracks.

If something "slipped through the cracks there"(and it's not even clear from the story that anything did), it is, at most, an oversight.  It does not equate to the Ontario NDP pandering to homophobia and the presence of this one candidate in the race is NOT the cause of the swing from the OLP to the ONDP.  

It was only the Right who did that pandering, and the declining PC support we've seen throughout this campaign is a sign that voters are rejecting ANY party that does such pandering.

bekayne

progressive17 wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Apparently, Canada has had 8 female Premiers, and only 1 of them was re-elected.  The rest were defeated or resigned in the middle of their term due to low poll numbers.    I suspect the public (consciously or subconsciously) is less likely to perceive women as competent managers of the economy and other matters.   

They obviously have not read about Boudicca, Cleopatra, Queen Theodora, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, etc...

Of the nine listed, five never faced an election. Of the four that did, two were forced to resign, two were assasinated. Don't quite know what point you were trying to make.

SocialJustice101

Yeah, and I don't think Thatcher was a shining example of competent female leadership.

brookmere

Mighty Middle wrote:

brookmere wrote:

In Ontario, once the Certificate of Nomination is issued, the candidate must personally apply to withdraw. The party leader cannot do it.

So how did Doug Ford expel his candidates?

They had not yet been offically nominated. The nominations don't open until the election is called, and no party candidate can be nominated without the approval of the leader, who by that time was Ford.

brookmere

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Yeah, and I don't think Thatcher is a shining example of competent female leadership.

One of the most competent politicians of our era. Remember, competent doesn't mean "on my side".

Mighty Middle

brookmere wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

brookmere wrote:

In Ontario, once the Certificate of Nomination is issued, the candidate must personally apply to withdraw. The party leader cannot do it.

So how did Doug Ford expel his candidates?

They had not yet been offically nominated. The nominations don't open until the election is called, and no party candidate can be nominated without the approval of the leader, who by that time was Ford.

One had been nominated and even had his campaign office open and running!

Paladin1

Quote:
After Thursday, I will no longer be Ontario’s Premier. And I’m okay with that.

And so is the majority of Ontario. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Thatcher was very competent at what she did. That is the problem. During their heyday, all of those prominent women were competent. Some of them accomplished many things. Anyway, I think about 24 countries have women Presidents and Prime Ministers.

There is one list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads...

It seems 7 people are collectively the Swiss head of state. 2 of them are women. 

Maybe 10% of countries have a woman leader. In 2015, it set a record at 22. The number should keep going up. The path to power for a woman is difficult. There are some examples who are doing it today.

SocialJustice101

Wynne has made quite a few mistakes.   Privatizing Hydro One was probably her biggest blunder.   She shouldn't have listened to the CEO of TD.    With that said, if someone like Gerard Kennedy was in charge, the OLP would probably be in dead-heat with Ford at this point.    The public is significantly less likely to perceive female leaders as competent, as Canada's electoral history confirms.

SocialJustice101

progressive17, heads of state are ceremonial in most countries, much like our Governor General and the Queen.    I'd focus on heads of government, and their re-election history.  

brookmere

Mighty Middle wrote:
One had been nominated and even had his campaign office open and running!

I can find no references in the media to any PC candidate being removed subsequent to the offical election call on May 10. If you know of one, please fill us in.

Mighty Middle

brookmere wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:
One had been nominated and even had his campaign office open and running!

I can find no references in the media to any PC candidate being removed subsequent to the offical election call on May 10. If you know of one, please fill us in.

He claims he resigned, but let's face it he was dumped

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/16/brampton-east-pc-candidate-s...

and Liberals were calling on Ford to dump Andrew Lawton and had a ticking deadline clock on twitter sent by their account

https://globalnews.ca/news/4212791/liberal-party-pc-candidate-andrew-law...

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Well she got a reaction from the resident babble Liberal troll so....

and this response show how much power I have over Sean in Ottawa

Foul people do inspire reactions. Trolls like you are all about provoking reactions. They have very little power becuase they cannot choose the type of reaction. So while you  are surely capable of generating reactions of disgust in other people you seem completely incapable of generating any positive reaction.

In fact it shows just how pathetic you really are to be proud of your power to piss people off.

Let me put it this way: I also get pissed off by a piece of dog shit on my shoe. That you can be so compared is really about where your real status here is. Yes, you can get a reaction but is it of the kind you really ought to be proud of?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
He claims he resigned, but let's face it he was dumped

But where are the goalposts?  They were right here a moment ago!

Oh.  OK.  Now they're over there.  Who moved them, MM?  Was it you?

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, you can get a reaction but is it of the kind you really ought to be proud of?

No it just proves you have no self control if you have to respond to every post here that irks you. Instead of just ignoring it moving on. If a post make you act like that it, shows other people have control over you. Instead of just being zen and moving on. Talking about getting angry like that (dog shit on your shoe), also probably shows you have road rage. Instead of letting go and moving on, you need things to fester.

So do yourself a favor and just ignore me. Otherwise, all you are proving is that you are easily provoked and have no self-control, and your anger akin to road rage. You just can't control it.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, you can get a reaction but is it of the kind you really ought to be proud of?

No it just proves you have no self control if you have to respond to every post here that irks you. Instead of just ignoring it moving on. If a post make you act like that it, shows other people have control over you. Instead of just being zen and moving on. Talking about getting angry like that (dog shit on your shoe), also probably shows you have road rage. Instead of letting go and moving on, you need things to fester.

So do yourself a favor and just ignore me. Otherwise, all you are proving is that you are easily provoked and have no self-control, and your anger akin to road rage. You just can't control it.

This is the cry of the asshole -- when called out he has to ask people to ignore him instead of modify his behaviour. You have been activley trolling here for a while and it is indeed a choice when to call you out and when not to. Nobody calls you out every time you behave like this otherwise that is all these threads would have. But responding to an asshole is not the sign of a lack of control, just a desire once in a while to put the label on what you do here. Most of your posts are designed to irritate and they do -- the lack of response just shows that people do not always choose to call you on it.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, you can get a reaction but is it of the kind you really ought to be proud of?

No it just proves you have no self control if you have to respond to every post here that irks you. Instead of just ignoring it moving on. If a post make you act like that it, shows other people have control over you. Instead of just being zen and moving on. Talking about getting angry like that (dog shit on your shoe), also probably shows you have road rage. Instead of letting go and moving on, you need things to fester.

So do yourself a favor and just ignore me. Otherwise, all you are proving is that you are easily provoked and have no self-control, and your anger akin to road rage. You just can't control it.

This is the cry of the asshole -- when called out he has to ask people to ignore him instead of modify his behaviour. You have been activley trolling here for a while and it is indeed a choice when to call you out and when not to. Nobody calls you out every time you behave like this otherwise that is all these threads would have. But responding to an asshole is not the sign of a lack of control, just a desire once in a while to put the label on what you do here. Most of your posts are designed to irritate and they do -- the lack of response just shows that people do not always choose to call you on it.

So if you had a magic wand, what is it that you want from me? Do you want me to leave and not return? Do you want me to delete my account.

Just tell me and I'll do it.

SocialJustice101

Now is not the time for the New Liberal Democrats to fight among themselves. 

Mighty Middle

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Now is not the time for the New Liberal Democrats to fight among themselves. 

Well if I cause Sean in Ottawa so much personal agony, I'll go if wants me to delete my account and go.

All he has to do is say the word.

KarlL

JKR wrote:
SocialJustice101 wrote:
According to a recent Ipsos poll, Lib voters would want their party to prop-up the NDP vs Ford, by a 3-1 margin.   And that's among the remaining Liberal voters.   The percentage should be even higher among regular Liberal voters, a significant portion of who is already backing the ONDP in this election.

 

The NDP would win a sizeable majority if instant runoff voting was being used instead of plurality voting. As things stand, the PC's could come in second place and still win a "wrong winner" phoney FPTP majority government.

 

True - but I am wondering where this argument ends up, given that the NDP has endured in the bad times as a 3rd party (or 4th party, federally, from 1993-97) , holding seats notwithstanding waves for other parties, precisely because we don't have a runoff leading to a two-party showdown. 

FPTP certainly isn't ideal but over the long run, a runoff system would have elected countless majority Liberal governments, as the usual second choice of most non-Liberal voters (even if that may be less true of hardcore partisans).  In some respects, minority achieves a more representative outcome,  The 1/5th (hopefully 1/4th, from my perspective) of the electorate that votes Liberal on June 7 could have a smattering of seats and some role in determining the outcome, as opposed to them all being corralled under the NDP.  Why should it be the latter based on their reluctant 2nd choices?

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, you can get a reaction but is it of the kind you really ought to be proud of?

No it just proves you have no self control if you have to respond to every post here that irks you. Instead of just ignoring it moving on. If a post make you act like that it, shows other people have control over you. Instead of just being zen and moving on. Talking about getting angry like that (dog shit on your shoe), also probably shows you have road rage. Instead of letting go and moving on, you need things to fester.

So do yourself a favor and just ignore me. Otherwise, all you are proving is that you are easily provoked and have no self-control, and your anger akin to road rage. You just can't control it.

This is the cry of the asshole -- when called out he has to ask people to ignore him instead of modify his behaviour. You have been activley trolling here for a while and it is indeed a choice when to call you out and when not to. Nobody calls you out every time you behave like this otherwise that is all these threads would have. But responding to an asshole is not the sign of a lack of control, just a desire once in a while to put the label on what you do here. Most of your posts are designed to irritate and they do -- the lack of response just shows that people do not always choose to call you on it.

So if you had a magic wand, what is it that you want from me? Do you want me to leave and not return? Do you want me to delete my account.

Just tell me and I'll do it.

Then go away just like you promised.

Let's be clear I never encourage people to leave here but since I think you are a troll then leaving would really make me happy.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Now is not the time for the New Liberal Democrats to fight among themselves. 

Well if I cause Sean in Ottawa so much personal agony, I'll go if wants me to delete my account and go.

All he has to do is say the word.

Cool this is me saying it.

Of course I never considered you a ND as you are clearly a Liberal.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Can we have a contest on your new identity?

Sean in Ottawa

KarlL wrote:

JKR wrote:
SocialJustice101 wrote:
According to a recent Ipsos poll, Lib voters would want their party to prop-up the NDP vs Ford, by a 3-1 margin.   And that's among the remaining Liberal voters.   The percentage should be even higher among regular Liberal voters, a significant portion of who is already backing the ONDP in this election.

 

The NDP would win a sizeable majority if instant runoff voting was being used instead of plurality voting. As things stand, the PC's could come in second place and still win a "wrong winner" phoney FPTP majority government.

 

True - but I am wondering where this argument ends up, given that the NDP has endured in the bad times as a 3rd party (or 4th party, federally, from 1993-97) , holding seats notwithstanding waves for other parties, precisely because we don't have a runoff leading to a two-party showdown. 

FPTP certainly isn't ideal but over the long run, a runoff system would have elected countless majority Liberal governments, as the usual second choice of most non-Liberal voters (even if that may be less true of hardcore partisans).  In some respects, minority achieves a more representative outcome,  The 1/5th (hopefully 1/4th, from my perspective) of the electorate that votes Liberal on June 7 could have a smattering of seats and some role in determining the outcome, as opposed to them all being corralled under the NDP.  Why should it be the latter based on their reluctant 2nd choices?

I worry about this problem and think that under PR it is not worth the risk to reduce representation in the government.

Essentially what FPTP does at the top level is what Runoff does at a riding level is this consolidation. Consolidation would be more effective at the riding level so runoff risks creating a government that while it is less likely to have what people most want will be the furthest from what they do want.

Still it is hard to predict what people's second choices actually are -- assumptions of wholesale migration from one party to another are incorrect. You might even see entrenched people have a second choice of very minor parties.

It is hard to imagine why you would do runoff rather than some kind of PR -- even with some limitations if people thought they were needed.

At the end of the day, the desire for runoff vs PR is based on the willingness to accept either perpetual majority or minority governments.

I think that governments must not only cooperate with the house but also over longer term with previous and past governments to provide stability. To that end minority multiparty government is best to avoid huge changes when the population has barely moved. Ongoing minority government, with parties used to working with each other would likely be more stable over a longer term even if some times there is short term instability in composition of government.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Now is not the time for the New Liberal Democrats to fight among themselves. 

Well if I cause Sean in Ottawa so much personal agony, I'll go if wants me to delete my account and go.

All he has to do is say the word.

Cool this is me saying it.

Of course I never considered you a ND as you are clearly a Liberal.

OK no problem if that is what you want I'll delete my account now.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Now is not the time for the New Liberal Democrats to fight among themselves. 

Well if I cause Sean in Ottawa so much personal agony, I'll go if wants me to delete my account and go.

All he has to do is say the word.

Cool this is me saying it.

Of course I never considered you a ND as you are clearly a Liberal.

OK no problem if that is what you want I'll delete my account now.

Sure of course. What do you expect? You piss someone off over a long time and offer to leave -- who would say no?

Pages