Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which side do you want to win?
YES
37%
 37%  [ 9 ]
NO
62%
 62%  [ 15 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author Message
SaintNobody





Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 132
Reputation: 27.2Reputation: 27.2Reputation: 27.2

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They'd still be accountable. Only with list candidates there'd be more people to be accountable to.
stageleft





Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Posts: 9
Reputation: 17.1Reputation: 17.1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is the theory, but (and there's always a but isn't there?):

[1] What happens when members go against the party line?

[2] How many people actually vote for the candidate as opposed to the party?

And just who are the constituents who will put these new members in their seats anyway? Who, other than the party they represent, and that appoints them to their seats, are they accountable to?

And exactly how is the independent voter represented?
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I prefer MMP to the Liberal One-Party state.


Then you're advocating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Ontario has only voted Liberal twice in 60 years; the PCs have governed for 47 years in that time.

It could be said that Ontario is a PC one-party state.
SaintNobody





Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 132
Reputation: 27.2Reputation: 27.2Reputation: 27.2

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I prefer MMP to the PC one-party state.

Same thing.
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt any of the "fringe" parties mentioned would get 3% of the vote.

The parties I can see taking advantage are the Greens and a bunch of right wingers

(Family Coalition and the new "Ontario Alternative")

This way we can split the vote and stop infighting without loosing seats as long as each faction gets 3 % and is therefore entitled to a proportional number of seats.

This way I can see the Family Coalition taking the socon votes, OA the Neo-liberal vote and the PCs the Red Tory vote. By freeing the PCs from the more right wing elements they can pick up more centrist voters.

All in all I envision 8% Family Coalition, 12% Ontario Alternative, 25% PC.

In total 45% of the vote equaling 45% of the seats instead of 32 % and a Liberal majority.

For local seats the Conservative Coalition could choose a party to run a candidate in each riding. (Rural ridings Family Coalition, Urban Ridings PC, and Suburban Ridings OA) or something like that.
Ruth





Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 243
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5
votes: 7

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will be voting yes, as will my husband.
Fringies will not take over, but we will have more minority governments... which neither of us view as a bad thing. As we have seen at the federal level, minorities can be made to work.
As I see it, the Family Coalition and the Green parties will be the biggest beneficiaries of this. Were it ever to happen at the federal level (and I hope it does) the CHP and the Green party would benefit. The Conservatives would too, since many people who currently vote exclusively CHP would support the Conservatives as well.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I doubt any of the "fringe" parties mentioned would get 3% of the vote.


If you look again at what I wrote, you'll see that I agree with you, however, I believe that the 3% rule will be struck down as unconstitutional.

When the feds introduced the $1.75/vote subsidy, they originally had a rule stating that a party must receive at least 5% of the vote to get the subsidy.

The fringe parties led by the Marxist-Leninists challenged the 5% rule all the way to the Supreme court; which ruled in their favour.

I believe a similar thing will happen provincially with the 3% rule and in fact, according to my contacts in the fringe parties, they're already planning to challenge it if MMP is accepted.

In reality the 3% rule doesn't make sense if the point of MMP is to "Make every vote count" as they claim.

If 6 fringe parties receive 2.5% of the vote, then under the proposed rules, they wouldn't get representation despite representing 15%. The fringe parties will argue to the court that if MMP is supposed to "make every vote count" then is it really fair to dismiss 15% of votes?

They'll argue that the 3% rule is designed to protect the interests of the dominant political parties and based on precedence, I believe the courts will agree with them.
stageleft





Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Posts: 9
Reputation: 17.1Reputation: 17.1

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As with all other elections I will not be voting at all - it only encourages them to perpetuate the system they have built.

And yes, the 3% rule is protect the interests of the dominant political parties.
Reform





Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 49
Reputation: 19.7Reputation: 19.7
Location: Edmonton-Strathcona or Medicine Hat

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The MMP system only alows for less of one of the founding principles of this great nation, the principle being Reprentation by POPULATION, thus making the core of the positions of MP, MPP, MNA, MHA, MLA, etc. one of representing their constituents in Ottawa, Edmonton, Toronto, Victoria, etc.

My concern is that the "at-large" MPPs have no duty to do in the house or any right to criticize the government even if they are opposition MPPs, because they answer to no constituents.
cerl7011





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 334
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reform wrote:
The MMP system only alows for less of one of the founding principles of this great nation, the principle being Reprentation by POPULATION, thus making the core of the positions of MP, MPP, MNA, MHA, MLA, etc. one of representing their constituents in Ottawa, Edmonton, Toronto, Victoria, etc.

My concern is that the "at-large" MPPs have no duty to do in the house or any right to criticize the government even if they are opposition MPPs, because they answer to no constituents.


But I thought representation by population actually ment representation by population?...when over half of the population isn't represented as they would like to be, then it's hardly fair. MMP will make government fair again.

Sure, the NDP will pick up a few more seats here and there, but at least people in Hamilton, for example, will recieve the representation they deserve. Currently, all of our MPPs are Grits and New Democrats, yet hundreds of thousands of people voted PC in the last election. Under MMP, all Ontarians will have a say, finally. We deserve MMP.

I say we make government fair again.

erl
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: DO IT FOR THE WOMAN! Reply with quote

More 'Janes' needed in politics: former ministers

Canadian Press

It's time for "more Janes and less Dicks'' in provincial politics, former New Democrat cabinet minister Marilyn Churley said Thursday as past female politicians warned a gender-balanced legislature is unlikely unless Ontario residents vote to change the system.

At the current rate, it will take another century before half the politicians are women unless Ontario voters choose electoral reform in the coming Oct. 10 referendum and election, Churley said.

Churley said the current scenario is like something out of the famous "Dick and Jane'' primary school readers of the 1950s.

"It goes something like this -- see Jane run, see Dick run. See Dick win,'' she said. "To put it bluntly, we need more Janes and less Dicks.''

A growing number of prominent women have said they aren't running again in the coming election, including two Liberal cabinet ministers and NDP veteran Shelley Martel. That's left many worried about gender balance in provincial politics.

All three mainstream parties vowed to increase the number of female candidates in the coming election, but with nominations coming to an end, it seems some parties may not meet their goal.

"With the high profile departures that we've had recently, it's underlining the fact that despite the effort of so many and despite the pledges of all three leaders . . . it's still not working,'' said former Conservative finance minister Janet Ecker.

"We're looking at this upcoming election and unfortunately we might start sliding backward. We think it's time to consider a new way to select our elected representatives.''

When voters go to the polls Oct. 10, they will be asked whether they want to adopt the system used in Germany and New Zealand called mixed-member proportional or whether they want to stick with the existing first-past-the-post system.

The mixed-member system is more reflective of the popular vote and has resulted in more female politicians in countries that have adopted it, the group argued as it urged voters to consider supporting the reform.

"We think it is time,'' Ecker said. "In a society as diverse as Ontario, you need people sitting in that chamber down the hall who come from different backgrounds, who come with different experiences and different perspectives. That's what a democratic system is supposed to be all about.''

At least one high-profile woman being courted by several political parties said she doesn't see the need for concern.

Teresa Cascioli, who was CEO of Hamilton's Lakeport Brewing and brought it back from the brink of bankruptcy until it was bought out by Labatt, said people need strong leaders regardless of their gender.

"I never consider myself to be a woman, whether it's in a political role or a business role,'' said Cascioli, adding she won't run for office in October but hasn't ruled it out in the future.

"I don't make decisions based on my gender. I don't think we as a culture should think at things that way.''

Still, others say the recent controversy over a sexist photo illustration posted by a Liberal strategist underlines the need for more women to change the political culture.

A photo posted on Warren Kinsella's website this week suggested Conservative Lisa MacLeod would rather be at home "baking cookies'' than on the campaign trail with her leader.

Premier Dalton McGuinty called the posting "unfortunate'' but said he would continue to seek Kinsella's advice.

That kind of attitude increases the alienation many women feel when it comes to politics, said Michelle Dagnino, a member of the group Equal Voice.

"When those sorts of comments are made, young women feel that . . . it's an instant barrier to entering politics,'' she said.

Others didn't think "baking cookies'' was an insult. Tricia Waldron, Liberal volunteer and former president of the party's women's commission, said the posting was "not appropriate'' but people shouldn't overreact.

"We assume that baking cookies is a bad thing,'' she said. "Why is that a bad thing? I don't think it is at all.''
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ontario Electoral Reform Referendum

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB