Some Liberals are raising questions about whether it was a strategic mistake not to advertise more heavily over the past year, and whether now is the time to change course.
I’m a big supporter of PR (I don’t really understand people who aren’t – it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.
My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can’t get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the “fuck trudeau” people, i’m suspicious that we wouldn’t also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.
Saying that PR means a more fractured gov’t instead of saying it means elected officials have to work together to come to a consensus is a bit naive at best.
Just because a gov’t wouldn’t have carte blanche to do whatever they wanted is not a bad thing. It just means they’ll have to change they way they do things.
The onus would be on the left-wing parties to deliver actual progress for people, but that’s not a problem with FPTP or PR: both systems have problems with neoliberal rot, where left- and centre-left parties forget they need to do things for citizens and not billionaires, and their progressivism devolves into green- and rainbow-washing.
The right has the same issue, only when they fail to deliver for citizens, they just scapegoat brown/Jewish/queer/whatever folk and start with progroms.
I’m a big supporter of PR (I don’t really understand people who aren’t – it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.
My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can’t get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the “fuck trudeau” people, i’m suspicious that we wouldn’t also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.
Saying that PR means a more fractured gov’t instead of saying it means elected officials have to work together to come to a consensus is a bit naive at best.
Just because a gov’t wouldn’t have carte blanche to do whatever they wanted is not a bad thing. It just means they’ll have to change they way they do things.
I don’t understand how it’s naive at best? What you’ve stated, sounds almost the same as what i stated except with optimism.
This is a pretty insulting, and not bound to help people listen and understand you.
The onus would be on the left-wing parties to deliver actual progress for people, but that’s not a problem with FPTP or PR: both systems have problems with neoliberal rot, where left- and centre-left parties forget they need to do things for citizens and not billionaires, and their progressivism devolves into green- and rainbow-washing.
The right has the same issue, only when they fail to deliver for citizens, they just scapegoat brown/Jewish/queer/whatever folk and start with progroms.
A fractured government where things get done with more deliberation and compromise is a feature, not a bug.