Welcome Guest!
WIn order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Politics Discussion
The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It is an appalling idea, but I have no doubt that loyal members of Ford Nation will support it.   Whether anyone in the PC caucus has the cojones to stand up against it remains to be seen (has the Premier already run it by caucus?  I shouldn't think there was time).  I really wonder what the City of Toronto is supposed to do now pending further court action, recall of Parliament, and invocation of the notwithstanding clause?  Do they prepare for an election of 47 councillors? 25 councillors?  Both?  Neither?

Toronto's election is void, that much should already be the case.

As for the notwithstanding clause, his choice to use it in this instance should be disqualifying.  If the PC party wishes us to have any respect for them ever again, they should immediately recall Ford, and run a leadership race.

I think Ford will need to introduce a new bill while invoking the notwithstanding clause, he cannot retroactively apply it to a bill formerly passed. So figure on another week to pass while they get done (assuming not obstruction tactics by the opposition) -- and while the city considers its next step. I agree the city may have to postpone the election, which surely takes us to even less charted waters.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 07:17 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 06:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: To put it another way, anyone who agrees with what Ford did and how he did it, is inherently unreasonable.

And yet, there are literally millions of Ontarians who feel this way--even in Toronto.  I find that utterly terrifying.
Which means there are millions of Ontarians with a differing opinion to yours.  Why is it that you label them if they dont agree with your opinion ?  I have never understood this position, if people appose your opinion on a topic they are some how inferior or any other stated description that seems to behold a particular situation.  Imagine if everyone thought the exact thing, or shared the same opinion on every subject.  We would never have growth and development..    Perhaps time for self-reflection is in order ...

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is a question of objective reality.

This is no different than climate change.  I disagree with many people on how best to combat, or even whether to combat climate change.

But disagreeing on whether it is happening or not isn't a matter of opinion.

I argue this is the same thing.  It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on what size Toronto city council should be, or even the degree to which the public or experts should be consulted on the decision.

But I do not feel it is reasonable to believe that his decision wasn't politically motivated and that doing it during an election with zero consultation of any kind was a good idea.  I don't think that's an opinion.  And that belief has now been backed up by a court decision.

This is an affliction in today's society I feel, the idea that your opinion is just as good as reality.

If we don't have any objective reality, then we have nothing.

I spend plenty of time reflecting on my own positions. I wish others did as well.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 07:48 PM)jgsz Wrote: The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.

I dont like this line of reasoning in these cases.  I agree with a lot of the problems of a representative system like we have.  But it’s what we have and it works as intended.  People are going to tune out to this argument.  

Overruling the courts on charter matters because you can (and intending to use it regularly) is NOT how our system was intended to work.  And we really don’t want it to work this way.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:21 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 07:48 PM)jgsz Wrote: The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.

I dont like this line of reasoning in these cases.  I agree with a lot of the problems of a representative system like we have.  But it’s what we have and it works as intended.  People are going to tune out to this argument.  

Overruling the courts on charter matters because you can (and intending to use it regularly) is NOT how our system was intended to work.  And we really don’t want it to work this way.

I agree. I would like a (more?) proportional electoral system but this is what we have today, and we need to accept that this is how things work.

But the notwithstanding clause was certainly not intended or settling personal grudges with a lower level of government.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:10 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 07:17 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Which means there are millions of Ontarians with a differing opinion to yours.  Why is it that you label them if they dont agree with your opinion ?  I have never understood this position, if people appose your opinion on a topic they are some how inferior or any other stated description that seems to behold a particular situation.  Imagine if everyone thought the exact thing, or shared the same opinion on every subject.  We would never have growth and development..    Perhaps time for self-reflection is in order ...

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is a question of objective reality.

This is no different than climate change.  I disagree with many people on how best to combat, or even whether to combat climate change.

But disagreeing on whether it is happening or not isn't a matter of opinion.

I argue this is the same thing.  It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on what size Toronto city council should be, or even the degree to which the public or experts should be consulted on the decision.

But I do not feel it is reasonable to believe that his decision wasn't politically motivated and that doing it during an election with zero consultation of any kind was a good idea.  I don't think that's an opinion.  And that belief has now been backed up by a court decision.

This is an affliction in today's society I feel, the idea that your opinion is just as good as reality.

If we don't have any objective reality, then we have nothing.

I spend plenty of time reflecting on my own positions.  I wish others did as well.
Two points, you still didn't acknowledge the point that you reduced yourself to labeling people, which was my point..

Secondly, if you believe your wisdom and objective reality is more important than other people's thoughts, run for politics and champion your cause..
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 08:21 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: I dont like this line of reasoning in these cases.  I agree with a lot of the problems of a representative system like we have.  But it’s what we have and it works as intended.  People are going to tune out to this argument.  

Overruling the courts on charter matters because you can (and intending to use it regularly) is NOT how our system was intended to work.  And we really don’t want it to work this way.

I agree. I would like a (more?) proportional electoral system but this is what we have today, and we need to accept that this is how things work.

But the notwithstanding clause was certainly not intended or settling personal grudges with a lower level of government.

But we don't have to accept that this is how things work.  We can change how things work.  Pointing out that things like this would be prevented with a more proportional system shows exactly why we *should* change how things work.

One thing to note however, ignoring the problems of intentional bad timing and political motivations, the support for the idea of decreasing council size, and making these changes without the usual process of public consultation, does show why some people strongly support FPTP--they prefer a dictator, even if it's only one they get to elect ever 4 years.  This "process" by where we get "everyones" input (as flawed as it may be) slows things down and makes us make more reasonable central decisions, is just not something some people like the idea of.  Proportional representation is just a more effective, stronger version of this.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:34 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 08:10 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is not a matter of opinion.  This is a question of objective reality.

This is no different than climate change.  I disagree with many people on how best to combat, or even whether to combat climate change.

But disagreeing on whether it is happening or not isn't a matter of opinion.

I argue this is the same thing.  It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on what size Toronto city council should be, or even the degree to which the public or experts should be consulted on the decision.

But I do not feel it is reasonable to believe that his decision wasn't politically motivated and that doing it during an election with zero consultation of any kind was a good idea.  I don't think that's an opinion.  And that belief has now been backed up by a court decision.

This is an affliction in today's society I feel, the idea that your opinion is just as good as reality.

If we don't have any objective reality, then we have nothing.

I spend plenty of time reflecting on my own positions.  I wish others did as well.
Two points, you still didn't acknowledge the point that you reduced yourself to labeling people, which was my point..

Secondly, if you believe your wisdom and objective reality is more important than other people's thoughts, run for politics and champion your cause..

I am labeling people, and while I think we should avoid reducing people to their labels, at a certain point, I think labels are appropriate. You can certainly disagree...that's an opinion.

As for "my objective reality" you don't seem to get what the point is, it's not *my* reality, it's everyone's. No matter whether you believe it or not.  it's not more important than people's "thoughts", it simply *is*..., but disagreeing with reality is unlikely to lead to good outcomes.

And it's not even *me* saying it, in this case, it's the court. But it wasn't particularly hard to observe either, which is why I don't believe it's reasonable for people not to see it, people who aren't seeing it.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 08:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I agree. I would like a (more?) proportional electoral system but this is what we have today, and we need to accept that this is how things work.

But the notwithstanding clause was certainly not intended or settling personal grudges with a lower level of government.

But we don't have to accept that this is how things work.  We can change how things work.  Pointing out that things like this would be prevented with a more proportional system shows exactly why we *should* change how things work.

One thing to note however, ignoring the problems of intentional bad timing and political motivations, the support for the idea of decreasing council size, and making these changes without the usual process of public consultation, does show why some people strongly support FPTP--they prefer a dictator, even if it's only one they get to elect ever 4 years.  This "process" by where we get "everyones" input (as flawed as it may be) slows things down and makes us make more reasonable central decisions, is just not something some people like the idea of.  Proportional representation is just a more effective, stronger version of this.
Further to your point.  

An example:

There are 124 seats in the Ontario Legislature.

The Conservatives win 123 seats by just one vote.

The Liberals win one seat by 125 votes.

The Liberals win the popular vote and get one seat.

I know this is an extreme example but variations on this theme happens all the time.  I would like to see those who say this is the system we have defend this or less extreme examples.  I can’t.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 08:28 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I agree. I would like a (more?) proportional electoral system but this is what we have today, and we need to accept that this is how things work.

But the notwithstanding clause was certainly not intended or settling personal grudges with a lower level of government.

But we don't have to accept that this is how things work.  We can change how things work.  Pointing out that things like this would be prevented with a more proportional system shows exactly why we *should* change how things work.

Oh, I agree that we should change how the elections work, I just don't know how to get it to happen without the governing (majority) party supporting it. (I had some hope that the Liberals would do that on the federal level, but unfortunately that seems to be completely dead.) 

But in the meantime, I do think that we should accept that this is how things work now, and that this is our legal electoral system, until such time that we are able to change the system (for something better).
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links