Bc Will Have Second Referendum On Stv

[Matt]

I don't think the NDP and the Liberals work well together, the NDP kind have likes to force things through that the Liberals might not support otherwise. Also, the reason why PR is so popular with parties like the NDP is because it's the only way they might ever have a chance to actually win an election. Even then, it's still a slim chance.

[Bizud]

The federal NDP and Liberals could get along just fine if they needed to in order to govern, as parties all around the world have proven time and time again. Politicians will cooperate as well as they have to, if they have to. So let's make them, assuming that what we want is for our policians to come together from different views and try to reach a consensus based on holding the support of a majority of the population. You might well want something different out of politics.

[Matt]

People who voted for the Liberals though voted for the Liberal solutions, not the N.D.P. ones. So, strong arming the Liberals like the NDP did is not cooperation.

[Bizud]

How can it possibly be strong arming? The NDP did exactly what they were sent to Ottawa to do, just because you don't like it don't paint it to be something that it's not. It's called negotiation. People who voted for "the Liberal solution" still got it, because the Liberals didn't (and wouldn't) agree to something out of step with their policies. Also, you're right that Liberal voters want "the Liberal solutions." What you don't seem to grasp is that most voters are not Liberal voters.

[Matt]

PR would not work though, that was one hundred percent strong arming. If what the NDP was asking for would have been accepted by the Liberals anyways because you're claiming it was the Liberal solution, then does it not stand to reason all they had to do was wait, give the Liberals their support, and then said, can you change this in the budget...? Yes it does, but instead they strong armed the Liberals into changing the budget.

[Bizud]

You don't pledge your support and then ask for a concession because it looks like you've made a new friend. What the fuck kind of negotiating is that? No party that took that attitude would achieve anything. You say "you'll get our votes IF..." That's what members are sent to Ottawa to do. You might not like it because it interferes with the Liberal agenda, but believe it or not, members are sent to Ottawa to vote either for or against, and to attempt to change legislation into something they can vote for. You know, they're supposed to be doing that. When the Conservatives propose amendments that entirely kill the spirit of a bill, they are doing their job by fighting tooth and nail for the platform they were elected on. Similarly, when the NDP offer their support at a price, they're doing their job. Setting conditions on your support is not "strong-arming," it is negotiating. Negotiation is the essence of modern parliamentary democracy.

[Matt]

No it's strong arming, if the Liberals would not have supported it other wise it's strong arming, not giving them the chance to support it otherwise is also strongarming.

[Bizud]

But the Liberals say it's in line with Liberal principles! ;)

[Matt]

If it was in line to begin with they would have done that.

[Bizud]

So there can't be more than one course of action in line with a given set of principles? That's absurd.

[Matt]

That's not absurd, if it's something they'll agree with, strong arming would not be needed.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

So, why should we even have an opposition?

[Matt]

For question period, they question these documents, that way we can decide if we are for or against them. Also, because the government has to be re-elected at some point they are probably going to do their best to not pass something most people are against.

[Bizud]

But governments routinely do pass legislation without the support of a majority of the population.

[Matt]

No matter who people vote for, under any system, they are most likely not going to support everything the person votes for believes in any which way, anyways.

[Bizud]

That's very true, but proportional representation at least means decisions have to be approved by members elected by a majority.

[Matt]

Their decisions may not reflect the majority either though, so it makes no difference anyways, so we may as well keep our system.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

"Not that I know anything about the proposal, but I'm sure the way we do things now is just fine."

[supercanuk]

:angry: When will people realize democracy is a fallacy? :angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;)

[TheKwas]

What do you have against democracy?

 

What would you propose instead?

[Matt]

I think we should keep our current system.