Comment 63337

By Brandon (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 16:43:20 in reply to Comment 63325

PR isn't about the voters. Maybe reread the post. Those vested in obtaining PR claim its about the voters. When really its about them obtaining what they want by changing the game because they can't get it playing the one we have.

How is PR not about the voters? It's about those who don't vote for one of the four main parties getting the representation that they deserve. You are choosing to support suppressing their voice.

Marginal views don't deserve any representation if they can't win a seat in parliament. Again, PR is simply a consolation prize. A million people voting across the whole country but NOT getting enough votes in any one riding to win a seat, isn't broad based support. All it means is that not enough people in any one area support that party enough to make it successful. Elizabeth May got it right. She concentrated resources in one area to win a seat. Thats a place to start. It's no different than what Preston Manning did with Reform. They started off in a region, built the party and now it has progressed, transformed, merged with the PCs and now governs.

Again, you're choosing to suppress millions of voices and seem to be comfortable with that.

Explain to me exactly how a minority acts or governs as if they have a majority? They don't get anything accomplished unless they have the support of one or more of the other parties. We have had the longest running minority government in history. So obviously consensus was achieved numerous times and regularly.

You obviously didn't understand my point. The Conservatives got less than 40% of the vote. By any rational view, that's a minority. Due to the failings of our current system, they have a majority. You are choosing to believe that I feel this way due to the conservatives being the victors. It's wrong, but it's your choice.

The country hasn't moved rapidly in any direction. We haven't had a majority Conservative government in a generation. This one was 10 years in the making. By the way the last majority government in this country to have a greater than 50% plurality was Brian Mulroney's. It doesn't happen very often, particularly in multi-party systems. That doesn't mean governments don't receive mandates to govern.

A mandate that this government doesn't have based on the actual vote count yet can act as if they do due to the failings of our system.

Just because the results of the election don't mesh with your sensibilities or world view, doesn't invalidate them. It also doesn't mean that the millions of Canadians who did vote for the government are wrong, backward, regressive, or ill informed.

You are the one claiming that it represents the will of the voters. I'm looking at what the voters actually said and seeing a disparity between what they asked for and what they got. You don't see the difference between the two.

We have a system of government that largely works. There are some things that have to happen to make it work better.

And that's what I'm trying to do and you're telling me I'm wrong. It won't change because those who benefit from the system being what it is are those who would have to make the change.

Vote. If you don't vote don't bitch.

You really think after all this that I didn't?

Realize that if you don't like the results, you get a chance to change them next time. Thats the beauty of democracy.

And I'm working towards a true representative democracy. You're happy with a the current system.

Just because the result doesn't turn out the way you want doesn't mean the system is broken. Grow some thicker skin.

Based on the results, the system is thoroughly broken. You just like the results so refuse to see it.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2011-05-10 16:48:59

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds