General Politics Discussion

[danbrotherston]

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.