https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/201.../index-en.html

Great website on Proportional Representation.

Yeah that is what I met .
So you have a clear winner in the second round .

Well, my apologies for the misunderstanding. That's certainly more doable, but...why do it?

You had a choice of A, B, and C.
40% choose A, 38% choose B, and 22% choose C.
You run another election.
51% choose A, 49% choose B.

So, now you have a majority that chose A, but only because you took away a choice. A still isn't what the people who voted for C wanted. And it will be 51% of a smaller number, because there's no way they'll all vote again. There's actually a decent chance the 51% will consist of a lower number of people than the 40% did. A whole lot of trouble and expense, and I don't think you really gain anything from it.

If you want to give people more of a choice and direct say, and to ensure those people who voted for C still felt heard, I'd think some kind of a ranked ballot would make more sense. I think it does most, if not all of what you want, but in a much more efficient, timely, and cost-efficient way.

Yeah no problem with ranking ballot as well.

But the point is that a system of 2 round prevent the possibility of false representation.
Ie: you got liberal and NPD which have similar politics and than you have conservative at the opposite end .
So let’s say a county (or w.e you want a called an electoral voting territory) have a conservative deputy but they don’t want conservative anymore but the problem is that you have 2 opposition ( liberals and NPD ) , people with similarities political ideology could still elect a conservative by default due to splitting the votes resulting like 30% liberal , 30% NPD and 40% conservative!

That isn’t a good representative election since people didn’t know whom to vote to make sure conservative loses .

(Of course you could switch examples to favor conservatives but that isn’t the point ..)

It just make sure that the elected deputy is really the first choice when multiple parties are present .

Obviously the US doesn’t have that problem ( only D and R exist) and in Canada it is only recently that kind of problem occur because of strong apparition of Bloc Québécois and NPD and even Green Party getting a bit more attention.
Before in Canada only really 2 parties were present with real chances of being elected but now it gets very murky from multiple parties apparitions.

Imo an electoral reform to solved those kind of possible misrepresentation of intended voters should be dealt with .
Politics is too important to let decided by chance , especially with results that could produce something similar in the states with something like trump here in Canada .

If I remember correctly, an election in France , if no 2 round of voting wernt necessary , an extrem right wing party almost could of been elected through divided voting for marine Le pen but got totally destroy in the second round ....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen

And a lot of that happens as well here in provincial electoral vote in quebec multiple times .

The ranking choices of electoral votes is at a minimum a necessity imo .

Yeah, no question that it's been the left vote that's divided for the last couple of decades, so the Liberals would benefit from such a system now, maybe a different party in the future. I think ranked ballots do pretty much the same thing.

Another way to go would be a proportional system. The upside of that is the results most closely reflect the votes, and parties are forced to work together. The downside is that...parties are forced to work together.

Well the right did suffer as well some period of times a division of the votes as well when the reform party and conservatives were not together , it could of have help them as well with a 2 round system .

Your last part is so true

As covid cases are rising at alarming rates and every premier has a different strategy of which some are just outright stupid like Alberta's and a few others is it time for Justin to invoke the emergencies act? I had to google the last time it was used and it was by his father.

At best I would like to see a national mask mandate for any community over 5000 people or that has a case rate above a certain level.

Is this not currently the case? Are the current high numbers because people are not wearing masks? It's pretty evident politicians dont have a clue how to fix this without a vaccine, so declaring a national emergency would be pointless and just piss everyone off. Majority of people won't be happy if there is another lock down.

Implementing a country-wide mask order by using an Emergency power is way too risky politically. It's a guarantee that opposition would attack the Liberals and trying to prove that Covid mitigation plans worked is akin to proving a negative.

And a mask order would be the least of it.

Masks are really not the be all and end all. There is a lot of worry that people think wearing masks encourages them to take riskier behaviours. Like the idea is socially distance by being outside and not coming with 2m of people. If you are in a scenario where this is hard like a grocery store THEN wear a mask. But having a blanket mask mandate can mean people spend more time indoor within 2m of people.

So the Conservatives had a vote calling on the Liberals to make a decision on Huawei 5G
It passed with all parties support other than the Liberals of course.

Why does JT 's governments keep delaying tough decisions? Every other country has basically said no to Huawei. What is the hold up?

Funny Note as I always compare Corrupt Justin to Trump. Someone said to me he is more like Ivanka Pretty and speaks well but nothing between the ears

that's ok, let's not talk about Andrew Scheer hiring his own sister-in-law. Better to totally ignore it in your own party and walk around calling Justin Trudeau corrupt, while failing completely to produce actual evidence that supports this position. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

And how do we know this? As Erin O'toole the leader of the Conservatives told him he had to https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...standards.html

Who is Erin Otoole? He is the leader of the Conservative party and the guy who was serving his country while Justin Trudeau was sexually assaulting a reporter and prancing around in black face on a trust fund.

Calling Scheer out when Justin's whole family has gotten rich of him and when they try to investigate Justin is shredding documents relating to the WE scandal

My question was about Huawei also?

Ah great, not even an attempt to condemn the behaviour from you, just immediate pivots to attacking Trudeau. If you are going to go full trump-style name calling with "Corrupt Justin", you need to come with actual evidence. I get it, you like focusing on the unfalsifiable accusations like the sexual assault one you present as certainty in every other post. But if you really want to spin it towards WE, remember the conservatives spent MONTHS investigating with excruciating detail, bringing in every possible person involved, getting hundrds of thousands of pages of documents and all of that - all of that - utterly failed to turn up a single thing of any substance we didn't know on Day 1. Embarrassing. Of course, there are some people - the kind of trumpian people who use 'Corrupt Justin' - that clearly don't care about what the actual facts and evidence says, and conclude what they want.

Months ? Lets stick to the facts

Hey I asked about Huawei ?

Yes, months. By the time government was correctly prorogued in late august, the conservatives had been "investigating" every angle, interviewing every major and minor player, have had a massive volume of documents, turned over every possible leaf and.......wait for it.......found literally nothing new. The only substantive disclosure was Bill Morneau's completely voluntary issue of unreimbursed travel which the ethics commissioner accepted as being unintentional and dropped the case.

I watched a LOT of the testimony. If you had watched oh, I dunno, 5 minutes of testimony though you would have realized what was going on. The conservatives were not running an investigation. They were not trying to get new facts. Every single comment from Pierre Pollievre and down the line was entirely about trying to play the showman, try to take the existing facts everybody agrees with and pontificate their feelings about it. It was pure politics, not investigation. Which is why we have an ethic commissioner to give the appropriate judgement about this, because the conservatives failed badly.

The conservatives want to pretend they have found smoke. Take your claim about "Justin is shredding documents". Standard con line, you've obviously bought it hook line and sinker. Of course it wasn't justin, or anyone in the trudeau governmnt, or the civil service, or WE. You are referring I guess to an independent company called SPeakers Spotlight which never keeps records over 7 years. This is all presented by the cons as some evil thing, you buy it, and the political rollercoaster keeps on going. Man I hate having to refute all your BS.


I don't have a real opinion. Extremely complex decision, involving a tonne of pressures from the ongoing extradition case to the truly extraordinary and punitive actions from China, the imprisoned canadians in China, the US situation, etc etc. This is one of those truly above my pay grade decisions, and I'm not comfortable neatly dropping it into partisan talking points the way you are.

Oh it may be a tough decision and I get we have two gentleman sitting in a chinese prison for the last two years while we let the daughter of an elite Chinese official stay in house arrest in her mansion. Making a decision on Huawei is not going to change that situation. They have had years to make this decision and yet they refuse to make it.

If you keep being scared to make a decision on China because of retribution nothing will get done. China will just keep pushing you around. Weather it vaccines, PPe, stop taking our exports.

Interesting shows you how dirty politics can get on all sides
Caylan Ford suing the CBC and Alberta NDP party. Usually these types of cases do not go far but the NDP had to issue an apology to her so that puts them in a tricky spot

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/former-uc...uals-1.5192863

How do you they are "scared" and not making an informed, tactical decision for instance thinking they will have improved leverage after the extradition trials are complete or with a biden administration in power? I have no idea one way or the other, I just think it is insanely complex, o I'm not willing to just throw up these super simplistic narrative about being "scared" to try and score partisan talking points.

So I've been going back and forth a bit on the pretty big climate announcement, and I was initially skeptical but I'm (tentatively) optimistic again. So as we all know, first term the massive leap forward was the carbon tax. But as everyone also all knows, not enough. The proposed legislation is NOT a climate change plan. It is basically creating an accountability framework in which climate change plans live. A sort of legislative hook, modeled off some of the European countries. There is some pushback (the first hook should be sooner, say, but ok) but ultimately it actually seems fairly well crafted and an important thing to have.

So I say tentatively support it because what matters is the actual climate plan. THe liberals have been working a lot on this one, and some signalling it will come out as early as a few weeks from now. If it is a good plan, in a good accountability framework, then I'm happy.

But isnt their climate plan like me saying I will lose 40 pounds in the next year. All great but then you ask me what are my goals for the next 90 days and I tell you I have no chance in hitting my 6 month goals.
Also the Liberals assume they will be the party of power till 2050 . Also I do believe we have no chance on hitting our Paris Climate Targets and no country will.

I am curious how you think the Carbon tax has reduced the effects of climate change ?

No question Climate change is real though some will debate the effects predicted. Al Gore's first movie has shown many predictions were not accurate at all

The framework is emphatically NOT the 90 day plane in your analogy. It is like saying "ok, every 90 days we will check in and formulate a new plan and have these reporting requirements and a legislative hook so that we keep going throughout the entire year". The accountability framework is I think important, but it is not the same thing as the sequence of 90 day plans. And the fact that parties change power is sort of the point, this legislation is forcing future governments to at least come up with and report on plans, or they are going to be taking politically painful votes, that's sort of the whole idea. The way the liberals have signaled is that term 1 was carbon tax, and a term 2 plan is coming probably pretty soon. So that's why I say I'm tentatively supportive. I think the accountability framework is a great idea, but of course it depends on the efficacy of the individual plans.



It's basic economics. I'm a believer in the market and when prices go up for a particular commodity, then demand falls. Similarly when the funds go into incentives for things like energy efficiency or whatever, then demand rises. It is up to the market to come up with the best creative ways to adjust to these new pricing realities. There are other approaches like cap and trade that have similar aim with somewhat different mechanisms, but all of them consistently affect behaviours there is no denying this. It's like saying if I put a 50% tax on iphones, then a whole lot more people are going to be switching to android.

As a bit of a follow up, I was listening on the radio to an argument that was basically saying the trump adminstration has been absolutely TERRIBLE at supporting Canada while we are under the thumb of China right now, and been really problematic on the Meng Wanzhou extradition specifically. So there is a real hope that a Biden administration would be substantially more helpful to canada and thus the liberals are being very smart to drag out the 5G decision until the next administration is in power.

I still don't really feel I know enough to evaluate this myself, it is so complex, but I think knee jerk "they are scared" is way too simplistic.

That is the only reason I could see as well but if Biden drops the charges and lets her go that will be a bad look for him. Even if he does and than China lets them go that is a bad look for China. I guess Biden could back door a deal to drop the charges only if the CDN's are released.

Trump was really bad for the Canadian economy as a WHOLE ( preemptive defense vs oil..)..