Proportional Representation part 3

montrealer58 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

how dare we?

because we can be outraged and express it about as many things as we want?????!!!!!!!!

 

Yes.

Isn't context great? Here it is:

I did not say how dare just anyone be outraged at this broken promise -- I said:

How dare anyone be outraged and disappointed by this broken promise if they were still supportive of the Liberal party after the previous ones to Indigenous Canadians?

****

If you are going to answer defending the removal of the VERY RELEVENT condition and context, then please see that context.

Someone already angry with the Liberals over the retreat on their promises to Indigenous people I do not have a problem with and did not question. I am clearly one of those people.

The only people I said how dare you to are those who supported the Liberals breaking promises to Indigenous people and who were still defending them after that -- and yet now complain about the promise on PR.

PR is a big deal but thousands of people with substandard environment, education services, medical services should rate at least as high as that. This is sytemic racism.

If this does not rate as high as a priority as PR to you, then I say how dare you.

I will defend that point of view as well.

And PR means a whole lot to me.

Edzell wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

How dare anyone be outraged and disappointed by this broken promise if they were still supportive of the Liberal party after the previous ones to Indigenous Canadians?

Like whom for instance? Who specifically do you so accuse?

This forum is mostly an irritating waste of time, populated by far too many people whose whole purpose is to argue and bash each other verbally.

This was my last post (cue the sad bugle call :))

Thank you for asking --

First I criticized the letter of Fair Vote Canada for the characterization of disapointment in the context of some very serious promises already broken to Indigenous people. It is hard to have expectations to disappoint after those broken promises. That wording was the reason why I brought my bigger complaint here.

I have seen a number of social media posts from people who have complained bitterly about this but who claimed to have been fine with the Liberals up to this point. I certainly am as strong a PR supporter as you can get but I place the promises being broken to Indigenous people as the greater outrage and I was specifically targetting those who saved their outrage for this if they supported the Liberals through breaking promises to people who are living in deplorable conditions as a result of systemic racism.

I am outraged, as are others, who have not supported the Liberals through the other broken promises.

I targeted only those who say they supported the Liberals right up till now but are withdrawing their support now. Those are the only people I have "accused" of anything.

I have not said that anyone on this site fits in this category. I have not seen people here who were Liberals last week say they are not this week just becuase of this. My anger and harsh words would be only for them.

I stand with the people who have been outraged with Liberal broken promises all along.

Doug Woodard wrote:

E-Petition to Parliament on electoral reform sponsored by Nathan Cullen MP:

https://goo.gl/Imc26B

Please forward.

This (petition e-616) is the one people should focus on.  It's caught on like wildfire after Gould announced the Liberals were going to break their promise.  The petition has gained thousands of signatures in a very short time.  It's currently at 44,000 signatures and is growing rapidly. So sign and share.

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-616

There's a story about the petition's rapid growth on the Global News website:  http://globalnews.ca/news/3225325/28000-sign-petition-to-bring-back-elec...

Activists in BC are preparting to launch a Charter challenge:  https://charterchallengesite.wordpress.com/

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-616

Petition e-616 (Electoral system) now has 57,862 signatures and is en route to becoming the most signed official e-petition ever.  It is open for signatures until March 2, afterwhich it will be presented in the House of Commons.  Sign and share today.

ETA:  I wrote this post 12 hours ago.  I checked and the petition is now up to 70,762 signatures.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

..... I place the promises being broken to Indigenous people as the greater outrage....

I have to agree with you there. I had very reasonable expectations. I doubted they would address the entire Truth and Reconcilliation recommendations to the letter. I did believe they would move quickly on water, housing and health. Even on that I knew it would take time. I didn't expect overnight success. I did expect student funding to be fixed immediately and just a generally more substancial response to emergencies such as the rash of suicides by youth.

There is stuff that is relatively easy and to me common sense like getting universities and indigenous communities together to discuss innovative housing solutions instead of building houses no different than in a big city suburb.

When I said what I did -- upthread and how dare people who supported the government through the broken promise to Indigenous people it caused quite a stir. There is a CBC article relevant to that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-nations-children-health-care-fract...

"And yet the government has so far spent only $11.4 million in this fiscal year, a far cry from the $127.3 million it earmarked last July, according to documents Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada filed with the tribunal last month, which were obtained by the NDP, and subsequently shared with CBC News. (The government's fiscal year ends March 31.)"

This certainly appears as a drift but it really isn't. This is important context in two ways.

First, it is the greater outrage as I said. Reactions to the FPTP promise will have to bear that in mind. To that end People, I think, should stop saying they were shocked, dissapointed by the broken promise on electoral reform. That sends the message that the previous betrayals are ok. My reaction was to the start of the letter posted here to that effect. Instead I think it is better to place this electoral reform betrayal as a part of a pattern, another example, but not a unique thing.

Second, if you are wondering if the electoral reform promise anger will die down, consider that since there are other examples that this is unlikely. It is early in the mandate so the population is just starting to see the pattern but it is not the first serious betrayal by this government.

Lastly as I said before -- my how-dare-you comment was specifically directed ONLY at those who claimed to have supported the Liberals right up to this broken promse. I want them to explain how they could have supported them through the previous ones. Those who never supported the Liberals in the last year have nothing to explain.

This article is obvious context -- with specifics to that conversation in this thread and an important communications point -- and that we shoudl tone down the suggestions that we might have been okay with this government up till now. The message I prefer is this is one more thing -- a huge thing -- but part of a pattern.

Only with the full political context can we see the political implications of what is happening now. I see the Liberals over their full record losing votes and then turning to strategic voting appeals which would only make this really blow up. It is that dynamic that I think is a sleeper issue. So granted, the issue may now only motivate at most a million or so voters (which is not inconsiderable), but it could serve to ba a lightning rod for many more frustrated with the government.

It may also be that their honeymoon fed their arrogance to the poin they believed the crap about the next election being in the bag. Now they realise, if they are paying attention, that it's not.

Politicians often mistake political movement and think there is safety. In fact voters often move in large numbers for the same reasons and so a comfortable lead can disappear very quickly on just a couple issues.

mark_alfred wrote:

Indeed.  Not too long ago the Conservatives were considered unbeatable, to the point that Lib leadership candidate Murray and NDP leadership candidate Cullen suggested joint nominations in Con held ridings.  Things can change very quickly.  It was foolish of the Libs to reject proportional representation.  The best antidote against cynicism and huge vote swings is to have accurate democratic representation of the population's vote in the House.

Yes-- very true.

Parties seem to be sucked in by their own propaganda

You are still going to try with the same tired old arguments that have been used for decades and failed for decades.

The Liberals are liars

The Liberals campaign left and run right

Even after the sponsorship scandal the Liberals almost won in 2005. The Conservatives won for a decade despite scandal after scandal.

Strategic voting is a myth. There is zero evidence that people voted strategically in any election in numbers strong enough to have an impact. Specifically in 2015 Trudeau's numbers increased after the election. If people had been voting strategically then when polled they would answer the party or leader they really supported because there is no point to answering polls strategically.

Underestimating Trudeau again will not go better for you in 2019 than it did in 2015 no matter how hopping mad you are about it.

The deciding factor in 2019 will be the economy. If Trudeau is perceived to have done an adequate job he will mostly keep it. The opposition will have to prove they can do a better job of running the economy.

No election is ever in the bag but we can use past experience to extrapolate on what will likely happen in the future. Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP have leaders and that will undoubtedly have an impact but I think more for the Conservatives than the NDP unless the NDP makes significant changes in their approach. They need to drop the "we're almost just like the Liberals only we would keep our promises" narrative. Based on past experience, it doesn't work.

Well, given the pace of 1000 signatures an hour on the petition, I predicted last night that within twenty-four hours it would reach 100,000 signatures.  However, the pace has slowed somewhat.  Still, it's up to 90,000 from 76,000.  So, still very impressive.  It's the most signatures ever on an official parliamentary e-petition.

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-616