XXXXXX

379 results
1
2
3
4
5
6
...
8

This topic is locked from further discussion.

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]
[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
Are you rich?
redstorm72

Upper middle class, though most of my family is pretty well to do.

Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Almost everything the Conservatives want will benefit myself, my friends and family. Not to mention I think they'll do a decent job.
NVIDIATI

Wait, you actually know what the conservatives plan to do? Please tell me, because I don't have the slightest clue.

Create a mess obviously :P Though corporate tax cuts is what appeals the most, to bring it down to 15% from the current 16.5%. Obviously being politics I wouldn't be sure of everything they plan now that they have such power. Until they act everything is just talk. Interesting though that the NDP have gained so much power considering they're polar opposites to the Conservatives.

Living in B.C., aka: Hollywood North, where large corporations are flocking in already, that doesn't really excite me. I'm just reluctant to trust a party that feels they have to resort to fear tactics and negative buzz-words to win an election.

13 years ago

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

or a jet fighter pilot?
one_plum

lmao, obviously not.Though Canada did need to replace their current airforce, there have been something around 130 CF-18s built since 1983, and over the next 25 years there will only be 65 F35s to fill that role. Overall its still a downsize and something that needed to be done. Not to mention Canada has already contributed to development fo the F35.

13 years ago

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#154 redstorm72

Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Upper middle class, though most of my family is pretty well to do.
NVIDIATI

Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

Trickle down economics doesn't work, history has proven this time and time again. Why would a company hire more people when they are making more profits due to the tax cuts with the same amount of people? I agree that the NDP platform is over the top, but the Conservative completely screw the middle class in favour of giving corporations tax cuts that end up doing nothing. Besides, it was the "fiscally conservative" Cons that put us billions of dollars in debt while it was the "tax and spend" liberals that were running a surplus for over a decade. The last Conservative government we had (Mulroney) f***ed up the country and brought in the GST. The Conservative platfrom benefits no one except corporations.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="one_plum"]
or a jet fighter pilot?
NVIDIATI

lmao, obviously not.Though Canada did need to replace their current airforce, there have been something around 130 CF-18s built since 1983, and over the next 25 years there will only be 65 F35s to fill that role. Overall its still a downsize and something that needed to be done. Not to mention Canada has already contributed to development fo the F35.

Any idea how the F-35's match up to Predator Drones in terms of air superiority? Not that I think that's a battle that will ever happen, but I am kind of curious as to if the new shiny planes are already obsolete out of the gate.

13 years ago

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Upper middle class, though most of my family is pretty well to do.
NVIDIATI

Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
So... any thoughts on the future of the Liberal Party?
Is this a nadir from which they will return, or are they finished, and will the two major parties in Canadian politics now be the Conservatives and the NDP? In four short elections they've gone from four solid majorities to barely hanging on.
redstorm72

They have been around for over 100 years, the Liberals aren't going anywhere. The NDP gain is only short term, people were tired of elections and the NDP seemed like a good "protest" vote. Once the next election roles around and the NDP have managed to accoplish nothing, things will start to revert back to the way they were. The Liberals need a solid leader (Justin Trudeau anyone?) and to get back to a party message that speaks to the Canadian people.

The Progressive Conservatives had been around for 100 years too. Then 1993 came along and they were crushed basically out of existence.

Being around for over 100 years is not a guarantee. The Liberals have never been less than the second party in Canada. The magnitude of the Liberals' defeat in this election is quite literally historically unprecedented.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]
[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?
redstorm72

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

Trickle down economics doesn't work, history has proven this time and time again. Why would a company hire more people when they are making more profits due to the tax cuts with the same amount of people? I agree that the NDP platform is over the top, but the Conservative completely screw the middle class in favour of giving corporations tax cuts that end up doing nothing. Besides, it was the "fiscally conservative" Cons that put us billions of dollars in debt while it was the "tax and spend" liberals that were running a surplus for over a decade. The last Conservative government we had (Mulroney) f***ed up the country and brought in the GST. The Conservative platfrom benefits no one except corporations.

Actually, it's less Trickle Down and more Attract Business. Sort of how a Wal-Mart can actually invigorate a smaller town that it is built in due to bringing in shoppers from out of town, a better business environment will create more jobs as companies are attracted to the area. Of course, I live in western BC, so these corporate tax cuts are completely un-needed, we're already drawing huge amounts of new businesses, and have one of the biggest movie industries in North America.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]
[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?
F1_2004

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.

The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.

13 years ago

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]
[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
Ah, I see, so f*** everyone else because you got yours, right?
redstorm72

:? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.

Trickle down economics doesn't work, history has proven this time and time again. Why would a company hire more people when they are making more profits due to the tax cuts with the same amount of people? I agree that the NDP platform is over the top, but the Conservative completely screw the middle class in favour of giving corporations tax cuts that end up doing nothing. Besides, it was the "fiscally conservative" Cons that put us billions of dollars in debt while it was the "tax and spend" liberals that were running a surplus for over a decade. The last Conservative government we had (Mulroney) f***ed up the country and brought in the GST. The Conservative platfrom benefits no one except corporations.

Why would a company keep workers when the corporate tax is raised to 20% from the current 16.5%? Its up or down, no matter what there are advantages and disadvantages to each. I wouldn't compare this government to Mulroney, this party is fairly right-centrist. Though I'll be completely honest I did not expect a Conservative majority, NDP while it was a huge gain was less of a surprise this time around.

13 years ago

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 carrot-cake

Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
So... any thoughts on the future of the Liberal Party?
Is this a nadir from which they will return, or are they finished, and will the two major parties in Canadian politics now be the Conservatives and the NDP? In four short elections they've gone from four solid majorities to barely hanging on.
GabuEx

They have been around for over 100 years, the Liberals aren't going anywhere. The NDP gain is only short term, people were tired of elections and the NDP seemed like a good "protest" vote. Once the next election roles around and the NDP have managed to accoplish nothing, things will start to revert back to the way they were. The Liberals need a solid leader (Justin Trudeau anyone?) and to get back to a party message that speaks to the Canadian people.

The Progressive Conservatives had been around for 100 years too. Then 1993 came along and they were crushed basically out of existence.

Being around for over 100 years is not a guarantee.

Well, I think this is a wakeup call for the Liberals. To be quite honest, they didn't use Harper's blunders to their advantage at all. I barely saw any impacting and effective campaigning during the election by the Liberals. Hopefully they will realise how much they need to restructure and reorganize themselves.
I also think there needs to be electoral reform, I mean the conservatives only managed to snag around 40% of the vote, but have about 53% of the seats.

13 years ago

36392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#162 haziqonfire

Member since 2005 • 36392 Posts

It saddens me that most people didn't vote for the Conservatives yet they have a majority government.

FPTP needs to be abolished ASAP.

13 years ago

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] :? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.
Tylendal

Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.

The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.

I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?

13 years ago

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.F1_2004

The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.

I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?

Well lower costs for the movie industry attracts loads of film companies into Canada each year, so a lower tax rate, ie lower costs of operation can attract new companies.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.F1_2004

The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.

I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?

Yes. Wal-Mart is a good example. Many people see Wal-Marts as having a negative impact on the surrounding community, but the reverse is actually true. A Wal-Mart will generally improve business in the community around it, as it draws more customers from areas that DON'T have a convenient shopping center. The lower tax is the Wal-Mart, and the local businesses are job openings. It's a rather weak metaphor, but the theory is the exact same.

13 years ago

29297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 29297 Posts

This is unbelievably disappointing. Breaking election law and being found in contempt of Parliament (only Commonwealth nation EVER to be found in contempt of Parliament) gets you a majority, I suppose. Majorly disappointed.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

Just heard on CBC. The voter turnout was only 56%.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Just heard on CBC. The voter turnout was only 56%.Tylendal

Damn. That's easily the lowest turnout I've ever seen.

13 years ago

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

Just heard on CBC. The voter turnout was only 56%.Tylendal

You would think more people would care.

13 years ago

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#170 redstorm72

Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] :? Lower corporate tax can create more jobs, and attract new companies into Canada, ie. stimulate the economy. This is something that will benefit everyone. We're still in a recession we can't chance parties like the NDP spending our budget on social needs.
Tylendal

Is there actually any proof or historic precedence for this statement? Cause I hear it all the time that lower corporate tax will lead to more jobs, but all I see is CEOs pocketing the majority of the profits.

The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.

If a company wants a low tax rate, they are going to move to Mexico, China or India. Even if we lowered our corporate tax rate to 10%, we could still never compete with the rates in developing nations. I don't see much benefit to lowering it by 1.5% at the cost of our social programs and debt when it will make very little difference economically.

13 years ago

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171 carrot-cake

Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] The idea is that new jobs will be created because companies want to move to the area with cheaper taxes. It's not based on the trickle down theory.Tylendal

I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?

Yes. Wal-Mart is a good example. Many people see Wal-Marts as having a negative impact on the surrounding community, but the reverse is actually true. A Wal-Mart will generally improve business in the community around it, as it draws more customers from areas that DON'T have a convenient shopping center. The lower tax is the Wal-Mart, and the local businesses are job openings. It's a rather weak metaphor, but the theory is the exact same.

Which utterly destroys the businesses in the communities surrounding and in the town with the wal-mart. Everyone goes to the big box store because its easier, while the mom and pop shop which only sells a specialized item loses customers because they can't compete with wal-mart's rediculously low prices. Sure, walmarts have almost nonexistant customer service, but people don;t care about that, they want cheap and they want it now. Walmart doesnt pay the same wage as the mom and pop stores, they pay less, but people who have no work don't care.

13 years ago

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#172 carrot-cake

Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

This is unbelievably disappointing. Breaking election law and being found in contempt of Parliament (only Commonwealth nation EVER to be found in contempt of Parliament) gets you a majority, I suppose. Majorly disappointed.bluezy

I think most people don't know what being found in contempt of Parliament means. Heck, I didn't know what it means until I looked it up. If the opposition parties, brodcasted the fact that Harper broke the rules of parliament more loudly, then I'm sure this wouldn't have happened.

13 years ago

36392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#173 haziqonfire

Member since 2005 • 36392 Posts

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:

Cons 122

NDP 95

Lib 58

Bloc 19

Green 14

--

Too bad we use FPTP still.

13 years ago

8463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 8463 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?
carrot-cake

Yes. Wal-Mart is a good example. Many people see Wal-Marts as having a negative impact on the surrounding community, but the reverse is actually true. A Wal-Mart will generally improve business in the community around it, as it draws more customers from areas that DON'T have a convenient shopping center. The lower tax is the Wal-Mart, and the local businesses are job openings. It's a rather weak metaphor, but the theory is the exact same.

Which utterly destroys the businesses in the communities surrounding and in the town with the wal-mart. Everyone goes to the big box store because its easier, while the mom and pop shop which only sells a specialized item loses customers because they can't compete with wal-mart's rediculously low prices. Sure, walmarts have almost nonexistant customer service, but people don;t care about that, they want cheap and they want it now. Walmart doesnt pay the same wage as the mom and pop stores, they pay less, but people who have no work don't care.

Its not about wal-mart, it was an example showing how the lower cost attracts more consumers. So lower operation cost in Canada attracts more companies and therefore stimulates our economy.

13 years ago

6221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 6221 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?
carrot-cake

Yes. Wal-Mart is a good example. Many people see Wal-Marts as having a negative impact on the surrounding community, but the reverse is actually true. A Wal-Mart will generally improve business in the community around it, as it draws more customers from areas that DON'T have a convenient shopping center. The lower tax is the Wal-Mart, and the local businesses are job openings. It's a rather weak metaphor, but the theory is the exact same.

Which utterly destroys the businesses in the communities surrounding and in the town with the wal-mart. Everyone goes to the big box store because its easier, while the mom and pop shop which only sells a specialized item loses customers because they can't compete with wal-mart's rediculously low prices. Sure, walmarts have almost nonexistant customer service, but people don;t care about that, they want cheap and they want it now. Walmart doesnt pay the same wage as the mom and pop stores, they pay less, but people who have no work don't care.

the walmart near here actually pays more than all the other retail stores

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] I get the idea, but does the idea actually work in practice?
carrot-cake

Yes. Wal-Mart is a good example. Many people see Wal-Marts as having a negative impact on the surrounding community, but the reverse is actually true. A Wal-Mart will generally improve business in the community around it, as it draws more customers from areas that DON'T have a convenient shopping center. The lower tax is the Wal-Mart, and the local businesses are job openings. It's a rather weak metaphor, but the theory is the exact same.

Which utterly destroys the businesses in the communities surrounding and in the town with the wal-mart. Everyone goes to the big box store because its easier, while the mom and pop shop which only sells a specialized item loses customers because they can't compete with wal-mart's rediculously low prices. Sure, walmarts have almost nonexistant customer service, but people don;t care about that, they want cheap and they want it now. Walmart doesnt pay the same wage as the mom and pop stores, they pay less, but people who have no work don't care.

You just ignored what I said. Sure the communities around the town where the Wal-Mart was built suffer, but that's because everyone drives away from those communities to do their shopping in the place with the wal-mart. While there, they are more likely to go to restaurants in that community, shop at specialized stores in that community, etc. People don't go to one store at a time. When they buy stuff, they wander and window shop generally. In those cases, they will be visiting more than a Wal-Mart. You will NEVER see a single business owner say "I don't want my store right across from the Wal-Mart." A business owner would be ecstatic to have a Wal-Mart right nearby, because the amount of foot traffic passing through would increase by a huge amount.

Watch Penn and Teller's BS on Wal-Mart. And yes, this was entirely off topic.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:
Cons 122
NDP 95
Lib 58
Bloc 19
Green 14
--
Too bad we use FPTP still.
Haziqonfire

I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Jean Crowder (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.

13 years ago

928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#178 Sliverwarrior

Member since 2003 • 928 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]Just heard on CBC. The voter turnout was only 56%.NVIDIATI

You would think more people would care.

I didn't go vote even though I could have. Its irrelevant whom I vote for, in the end none of them are going to actually do what they say they are going to do. I'm not going to play this "election game" where we try to figure out who's going to screw us less.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"]Just heard on CBC. The voter turnout was only 56%.Sliverwarrior

You would think more people would care.

I didn't go vote even though I could have. Its irrelevant whom I vote for, in the end none of them are going to actually do what they say they are going to do. I'm not going to play this "election game" where we try to figure out who's going to screw us less.

Feel free to move to Libya, unless you can honestly tell me that there is not a party out there that you believe is better for your country than any of the others.

13 years ago

928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180 Sliverwarrior

Member since 2003 • 928 Posts

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] You would think more people would care.
Tylendal

I didn't go vote even though I could have. Its irrelevant whom I vote for, in the end none of them are going to actually do what they say they are going to do. I'm not going to play this "election game" where we try to figure out who's going to screw us less.

Feel free to move to Libya, unless you can honestly tell me that there is not a party out there that you believe is better for your country than any of the others.

I strongly believe that none of them are actually out there to benefit us the citizens.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"] I didn't go vote even though I could have. Its irrelevant whom I vote for, in the end none of them are going to actually do what they say they are going to do. I'm not going to play this "election game" where we try to figure out who's going to screw us less.Sliverwarrior

Feel free to move to Libya, unless you can honestly tell me that there is not a party out there that you believe is better for your country than any of the others.

I strongly believe that none of them are actually out there to benefit us the citizens.

What about the Marxist Lenenists? I'm pretty sure they have your best interests at heart.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]
Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:
Cons 122
NDP 95
Lib 58
Bloc 19
Green 14
--
Too bad we use FPTP still.
Tylendal

I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Carol James (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.

Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?

13 years ago

928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#183 Sliverwarrior

Member since 2003 • 928 Posts

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Feel free to move to Libya, unless you can honestly tell me that there is not a party out there that you believe is better for your country than any of the others.Tylendal

I strongly believe that none of them are actually out there to benefit us the citizens.

What about the Marxist Lenenists? I'm pretty sure they have your best interests at heart.

Now you're just being silly :/

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]
Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:
Cons 122
NDP 95
Lib 58
Bloc 19
Green 14
--
Too bad we use FPTP still.
GabuEx

I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Carol James (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.

Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?

Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"] I strongly believe that none of them are actually out there to benefit us the citizens.
Sliverwarrior

What about the Marxist Lenenists? I'm pretty sure they have your best interests at heart.

Now you're just being silly :/

What about the Green? They're perfectly legit, you can't tell me that they're in it for the power and prestige.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Carol James (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.Tylendal

Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?

Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.

Oh, right, I knew we had some form of electoral reform proposed but I couldn't remember exactly what it was.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="Tylendal"] What about the Marxist Lenenists? I'm pretty sure they have your best interests at heart.Tylendal

Now you're just being silly :/

What about the Green? They're perfectly legit, you can't tell me that they're in it for the power and prestige.

Well, besides Elizabeth May. :P

13 years ago

928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 Sliverwarrior

Member since 2003 • 928 Posts

[QUOTE="Sliverwarrior"][QUOTE="Tylendal"] What about the Marxist Lenenists? I'm pretty sure they have your best interests at heart.Tylendal

Now you're just being silly :/

What about the Green? They're perfectly legit, you can't tell me that they're in it for the power and prestige.

I'll wait until an actual decent party shows up and I'll vote for it. But we all know the odds of that actually happening. Seems like you guys will have to do the voting for me.

13 years ago

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Carol James (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.Tylendal

Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?

Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.

Proportional representation has its own downsides, such as densely populated city cores having most of the control and so on. Plus, if the votes were spread differently, the political parties would have focused their resources differently so the results would likely have been different than those numbers you posted. This is the way it is, and the conservatives got a majority win. If another way of counting the votes still lead to the conservatives winning, but with a minority, then we just wasted another 4 years of government and to what effect?

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?
GabuEx

Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.

Oh, right, I knew we had some form of electoral reform proposed but I couldn't remember exactly what it was.

Just curious. Do you have Jean Crowder, or are you in the riding to the North?

13 years ago

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#191 topsemag55

Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

Canadian Politics hurt my head even more so than American :x :P00-Riddick-00

I know - both sides are to the left, so what does it matter who's running the show?:P:lol:

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.Tylendal

Oh, right, I knew we had some form of electoral reform proposed but I couldn't remember exactly what it was.

Just curious. Do you have Jean Crowder, or are you in the riding to the North?

Well, I don't live in BC anymore, but when I did I was in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Didn't BC try that a while ago and wasn't it rejected by the voters?
F1_2004

Wasn't proportional representation. They used the phrase when they talked about it in ads, but they never actually called it proportional representation, because it wasn't. I studied that voting system in Socials a few years before they tried to bring it in. It simply creates larger ridings, represented by a committee instead of one person, and ultimately makes little difference. To top it all off, it's very convoluted.

Proportional representation has its own downsides, such as densely populated city cores having most of the control and so on. Plus, if the votes were spread differently, the political parties would have focused their resources differently so the results would likely have been different than those numbers you posted. This is the way it is, and the conservatives got a majority win. If another way of counting the votes still lead to the conservatives winning, but with a minority, then we just wasted another 4 years of government and to what effect?

Sorry, but if it's a majority made up of 39% of the votes, then something is wrong. Besides, even now, densely populated cores have most of the power, they have more ridings. You don't have to get rid of MPs and Ridings to have proportional representation.

13 years ago

16765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 16765 Posts

Yay Canada! Now, over the next few years, I pose a challenge towards Canadians: Pay attention to what goes on in parliament for once. Regardless of whom you support, just pay attention and be informed. Otherwise, Canada will just be a country of cowards, too afraid to know, or to care.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Proportional representation has its own downsides, such as densely populated city cores having most of the control and so on. Plus, if the votes were spread differently, the political parties would have focused their resources differently so the results would likely have been different than those numbers you posted. This is the way it is, and the conservatives got a majority win. If another way of counting the votes still lead to the conservatives winning, but with a minority, then we just wasted another 4 years of government and to what effect?F1_2004

Actually correctly representing the will of the people - you know, minor stuff. :P

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Oh, right, I knew we had some form of electoral reform proposed but I couldn't remember exactly what it was.
GabuEx

Just curious. Do you have Jean Crowder, or are you in the riding to the North?

Well, I don't live in BC anymore, but when I did I was in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

You moved OUT of BC? Now why did you go and do something silly like that?

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]Yay Canada! Now, over the next few years, I pose a challenge towards Canadians: Pay attention to what goes on in parliament for once. Regardless of whom you support, just pay attention and be informed. Otherwise, Canada will just be a country of cowards, too afraid to know, or to care.

I'm paying attention. I REALLY want to know what the conservatives are actually going to do.

13 years ago

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Just curious. Do you have Jean Crowder, or are you in the riding to the North?Tylendal

Well, I don't live in BC anymore, but when I did I was in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

You moved OUT of BC? Now why did you go and do something silly like that?

Because I got a job offer I couldn't refuse. :P

Would still like to move back someday though. I'll always consider Victoria, BC, and Canada home.

13 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

I just realized. If the NDP hadn't won Quebec, the Bloc would be the official opposition party. If that happened I'd move to Singapore before the end of Summer.

13 years ago

16765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 16765 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]Yay Canada! Now, over the next few years, I pose a challenge towards Canadians: Pay attention to what goes on in parliament for once. Regardless of whom you support, just pay attention and be informed. Otherwise, Canada will just be a country of cowards, too afraid to know, or to care.

I'm paying attention. I REALLY want to know what the conservatives are actually going to do.

Well, there's you, me, about 8 dozen more, and then a few million questionables.

13 years ago

379 results
1
2
3
4
5
6
...
8

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment