Canada’s housing crisis is off the charts, and half the country lives paycheck to paycheck. In a classic show of disconnect, some Trudeau Liberals think the party's greatest problem is that people don’t understand how fabulous a job they’re actually doing.
Well, no. The context of discussion centres around an earlier commenter’s claim that “We need a system that truly reflects the will on the majority of Canadians.” That cannot discuss the reality of the Canadian political situation as it is fundamentally forward looking to a reality which does not yet exist. FPTP, used as it was designed, is very well suited to achieving what is stated.
But it does mean that the people have to express their will, and they have proven that they don’t want to. They prefer to spend time focusing on their job, their family, friends, writing internet comments, etc. And fair enough. They want to hand control to a higher power and get back to their individual lives. FPTP is not at all suited to that.
No, it isn’t, as I said above. The Harper government was elected three times with less than 40% of the popular vote and did all the things that Conservatives do, ran up the deficit, ran up the debt, cut taxes for the rich and corporations, cut services for everyone else, burned decades of scientific research and muzzled government experts to push his christofascist dogmatic agenda, passed unconstitutional laws as a dog whistle to his christofascist base then spent millions of dollars defending them to the Supreme Court only to have 100% of those unconstutitional laws struck down. How is that representing the majority of Canadians when then had the support of less than 40%?
The current Liberal + NDP agreement government far better represents the will of the people but it’s a quirk of the FPTP system.
Yeah, no. The fact that you can actually name the dictator tells that this is not FPTP as it was designed. That is how it has come to be used, because people don’t want to express their will, but that has already been talked about to death.
Again, the FPTP system was designed to have the people select one representative who gathers locally to talk about their concerns and objectives with the local people. The representative then takes the result of that to Ottawa to combine with all of the other localities that have done the same to reach an ultimate consensus. The representative’s actions in Ottawa are recorded to make sure he has honoured what took place locally.
That is not how we use it. It has been bastardized to the point that it makes no sense. But we could if wanted to have the will of the majority represented. There is nothing stopping us other than doing the democratic work a democracy expects. The only possibly better way to have the will represented is to have us all travel to Ottawa and all gather together. That doesn’t scale so well, though, and it’s a long way from Vancouver.
To be fair, it’s also quirky that you have been able to determine the will of the people as they don’t usually want to express their will. Typically they’d rather let someone else figure it out. Hence how we got here.
You see? This is the kind of nonsense that is disconnected from reality. Harper was freely and fairly elected and was defeated in a free and fair election. He was nothing approaching a dictator.
I’m simply not willing to continue to discuss this with you if you’re not making arguments that are connected to reality.
Have a good day.
The only time Harper was not elected in a Canadian federal election was the first one he participated in. He resigned from politics about six months after his last election win. Maybe you are trying to imply that the resignation was a defeat? But that did not happen during the election.
Are you, maybe, talking about an election other than the Canadian federal election?
It sure seemed like you were trying to say that he had total control over the country at one time. I do not disagree. If that is not the case, why did you bring him up?
Sorry…your position is so ridiculous that there is no room for discussion.
Funny, as I stopped having a position a while ago. I long moved to trying to figure out your position as it is in no way clear.
Some pretty simple questions in that last comment that would help clarify things. Is there a reason you are afraid to answer them?
Your positions are so absurd that there is no chance to have a reasonable conversation.
What kind of conversation would we have had if, hypothetically, they were not absurd?
Reasonable conversation is predicated on starting with the absurd. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying, in good faith, to provide information to take us from the absurd to something sensible, but I am honestly not clear in what you are trying to say. My attempts to figure it out have been stonewalled.