|
|
Post by Rime on Sept 3, 2011 8:41:56 GMT -5
With two parties, all you get is the same polarized perspectives and stale old voices saying the same things, who can and do ignore the concerns of their citizens. There are many stable countries with more than two parties in their legislatures and they're still functional.
The Conservative party, cestlefun, has to be careful. If it decides to pander to something disagreeable to both parties and an election isn't going to piss off the populace, you can put good money on the Parliament being dissolved and an election date being chosen within a month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 8:51:52 GMT -5
Taxation without representation, then? Given that there are taxes on income, sales, etc.
Uh, is there any truth to this, or is this guy just talking out of his ass?
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. 18-year-olds pay taxes, can serve in the military, etc. You'd have to change a shit ton of laws before you could justify taking the vote away from them.
How very unAmerican of you. If you want to live in a country run entirely on your beliefs, go buy an island somewhere and start you own dictatorship.
Blah blah blah, the poor and illiterate aren't human beings.
If you honestly believe that CEOs pay $750,000/year in taxes, I have a bridge to sell you.
Vote buying. Lovely. Too bad money can't buy you a sense of social justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 3, 2011 8:54:33 GMT -5
I think the appropriate remedy for this is to institute term limits. Again, the majority-rules system is the only system that is flawless, which to me makes it the most desirable.
I have never been a fan of the parliamentary system whereby the legislature can be dissolved on a whim and at a moment's notice. The Governor-General/Queen who is supposed to be the executive (I think?) has the power to dissolve the legislature? I'll take the American system of separation of powers, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 3, 2011 8:57:08 GMT -5
No, only citizens can vote.
More importantly, you'd have to change the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Sept 3, 2011 8:57:11 GMT -5
The one about non-citizens being able to vote is total bullshit. You can only vote if you are a citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Sept 3, 2011 9:01:05 GMT -5
The most assinine idea in that article and the comments is that somehow the poor don't have a state in the economy. I'd like to say that's a mind-boggling level of stupidity, but sadly I've encountered too many conservatives and libertarians.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 3, 2011 9:01:22 GMT -5
As a side note, while this is currently the law throughout the United States of America, it is not actually required by the Constitution and historically some states did allow alien residents to vote in elections. 1928 was the first election in which no alien could vote in any election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 9:07:19 GMT -5
The GG doesn't dissolve Parliament "on a whim".
Believe it or not, countries outside of the US do manage to have stable governments despite not using your "flawless" system.
Given that the Conservatives have a majority, they'll be governing for at least four years, short of something drastic happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 3, 2011 9:08:07 GMT -5
Actually that might not be 100% total bullshit. It appears that there are a small handful of communities that allow non-citizens to vote in school board elections and some municipal races. Which to be honest with you I find preposterous. theleague.com/me/non-citizen-voting-rights-faqsI didn't say any other system is unstable; I said a two-party system is the most stable. Does the GG need to provide a "good reason" for dissolving Parliament? I understand there is a time limit after an election before Parliament can be dissolved, but if the GG doesn't have to give a reason, s/he very well can dissolve Parliament for whatever reason s/he so desires. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 9:13:54 GMT -5
I'm willing to sacrifice a small degree of stability if it means that we can limit polarization & two dimensional politics.
And if we're going to edify stability, would a one-party system not be the most stable?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 3, 2011 9:16:04 GMT -5
It's not so much the number of parties that makes a stable system but the number of candidates. You can have a two-party system but if you have two Democrats and two Republicans running all in the same general election, May's Theorem won't apply.
So if a one-party system has elections with more than two candidates then it still does not satisfy May's Theorem. A one-party system with only one candidate in each election is not an "election."
And I personally would rather have a two-party system whereby any winner in an election has the majority backing of his constituency and has been elected through a mathematically sound process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 3, 2011 9:19:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Sept 3, 2011 9:20:05 GMT -5
I think the appropriate remedy for this is to institute term limits. Again, the majority-rules system is the only system that is flawless, which to me makes it the most desirable. There ARE term limits. And you still have the same old stale voices. Thank you, flawless system. We've had the same thing for decades here too until the last three or four elections. I have never been a fan of the parliamentary system whereby the legislature can be dissolved on a whim and at a moment's notice. The Governor-General/Queen who is supposed to be the executive (I think?) has the power to dissolve the legislature? I'll take the American system of separation of powers, thank you. The matter of the Governor-General's approval for dissolving Parliament is almost always just a formality, and the exceptional circumstances have only been invoked once or twice since Confederation. And you can take your American system of separation of powers, but your ignorance showing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 3, 2011 9:22:30 GMT -5
Again, the majority-rules system is the only system that is flawless, which to me makes it the most desirable. You have a strange idea of flawless, but then again, you have many strange ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 9:30:10 GMT -5
Ah, legalism.
The Governor General is not an all-powerful god. If he or she were to dick around, a new GG would be appointed. Yes, the Queen's authority is still recognized in Canada, technically allowing her to dick around in certain ways, but in practice, she's not going to risk pissing off the Commonwealth and the world just for shits and giggles, and there are limits to what she can and can't do.
|
|
