I honestly never got the point of barring felons from voting. What if they rehabilitate while serving their sentence? Besides which, how are they any less human, or any less a citizen, simply because they've committed a crime?
While you may be right about the comparison being unfair, it doesn't mean that the restriction on free speech that the German government has in effect is right.
While I think that there are some very limited, specific, reasonable limitations to free speech (like where it harms the public safety, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre), you can't limit free speech just because someone, or some group, dislikes what you're saying, even if that group is the majority.
That's the whole point of free speech. Start limiting that, and you limit the viable thoughts that someone can express. Read 1984 if you'd like to know how that can turn out.
I don't know that that would make the seats any more proportional to the actual vote. Something like STV might, but just making it the first two parties past might just increase the power of the Liberal and Conservative parties further, since they're generally the top two.
This is why we fix the problems of MMP as I've described elsewhere. The system as it was proposed in Ontario definitely has its problems, but I think those problems could be fixed and we'd end up with a system that was both accountable and more proportional to the national vote.
No, it doesn't. You pretty much have the same thing with your electoral colleges. Take a look at your ratios some time; there's a reason why people had such a hue and cry over Bush being elected over Gore when the popular vote didn't reflect the victory.
Are you referring to something like a superdemocracy? Because I've been thinking of doing something like that as an experimental website. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this.
The reason they are small is that they are not popular with the majority.
Fixed that for you (though you pretty much said it later on). They can form a coalition after the election with the liberals anyway. They represent different things though, so actually having them merging into one party would, IMHO, be a bad idea, though from a strategic standpoint it would probably get them more seats.
Of course, the fact that they can't get the appropriate amount of seats without merging into one of the major two parties is probably the biggest reason the system is broken.
If I hear the words "Brought to you by your new Government" one more time (like we did after the last election), I'm going to shoot someone...preferably Stephen Harper.
Hi there, we'd like to have a talk with you. Please stay where you are, we'll be there momentarily.
Well, we realize that fully proportional representation would have those problems as well, which is why we were looking at mixed-member proportional, which is kind of a half and half system (though there are still more in the first past the post "half" than the proportional one). I believe you still have to get some minimum percentage of votes nationwide to get any list candidates put in as well.
Absolutely. The system had its problems as described, but I still think it would have been better than the current one. Those problems, by the way, could be overcome by having, say, a primary-like vote on the list candidates, where you voted on them by priority. The list candidates themselves could be further subdivided into areas (like per-province) so voters wouldn't have to look at such a large list.
Yeah, I think you'd be surprised. A bunch of my friends (of which a large percentage are not really geeks) have joined that group and are quite aware of the issues at stake.
Ironically, the first to join it was a friend who wants to be an IP lawyer.
The real problem here is the system. Let's take a look at the ratios between the percentage of seats each party got in the election, and their percentage of the national popular vote:
Conservative Seats: 143/308 Popular Vote: 37.63% Ratio: 2.03 (More than twice the seats they would have obtained under a 100% proportional system.)
Liberal Seats: 76/308 Popular Vote: 26.24% Ratio: 0.94
BLOC Quebecois Seats: 50/308 Popular Vote: 9.97% Ratio: 1.63 (Interesting thing here; because voters in Quebec will vote the BLOC in much more often, they're skewed way above other parties even though they're practically running only in Quebec.)
NDP Seats: 37/308 Popular Vote: 18.20% Ratio: 0.66 (Screwed once again.)
Independent Seats: 2/308 Popular Vote: 0.65 Ratio: 0.999 (Oddly proportional.)
Green Seats: 0/308 Popular Vote: 6.80% Ratio: 0.0 (Yeah. 6.8% of the vote, 0% of the representation. Good stuff.)
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
+1, Epic Win.
If your tie is win, you shall not fail.
+100, Insightful.
I honestly never got the point of barring felons from voting. What if they rehabilitate while serving their sentence? Besides which, how are they any less human, or any less a citizen, simply because they've committed a crime?
The sad truth is that he'll probably pay a fine and get off scott-free otherwise.
See, there's this thing called an analogy. It's kinda like a car...
Ha, you think you'll be able to get away by spelling Candlejack incorrectly, I rea
Y'know, if the inertial dampeners quit failing all the time, we'd never need seatbelts at all.
I think if Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that baldness is one thing that will never be cured.
And yet they're used in FBI and CIA interviews.
Yay hypocrisy!
While you may be right about the comparison being unfair, it doesn't mean that the restriction on free speech that the German government has in effect is right.
Mod parent up.
While I think that there are some very limited, specific, reasonable limitations to free speech (like where it harms the public safety, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre), you can't limit free speech just because someone, or some group, dislikes what you're saying, even if that group is the majority.
That's the whole point of free speech. Start limiting that, and you limit the viable thoughts that someone can express. Read 1984 if you'd like to know how that can turn out.
*whoosh*
Perhaps. I haven't really looked into it much, but I agree that the system here needs change.
I think first past the post doesn't affect you guys as much because you only have two serious parties whereas we have multiple real contenders.
I don't know that that would make the seats any more proportional to the actual vote. Something like STV might, but just making it the first two parties past might just increase the power of the Liberal and Conservative parties further, since they're generally the top two.
This is why we fix the problems of MMP as I've described elsewhere. The system as it was proposed in Ontario definitely has its problems, but I think those problems could be fixed and we'd end up with a system that was both accountable and more proportional to the national vote.
No, it doesn't. You pretty much have the same thing with your electoral colleges. Take a look at your ratios some time; there's a reason why people had such a hue and cry over Bush being elected over Gore when the popular vote didn't reflect the victory.
Are you referring to something like a superdemocracy? Because I've been thinking of doing something like that as an experimental website. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this.
Fixed that for you (though you pretty much said it later on). They can form a coalition after the election with the liberals anyway. They represent different things though, so actually having them merging into one party would, IMHO, be a bad idea, though from a strategic standpoint it would probably get them more seats.
Of course, the fact that they can't get the appropriate amount of seats without merging into one of the major two parties is probably the biggest reason the system is broken.
Hi there, we'd like to have a talk with you. Please stay where you are, we'll be there momentarily.
Yours,
RCMP
Why should the NDP or the Greens have to merge with the Liberals simply because they're small?
Well, we realize that fully proportional representation would have those problems as well, which is why we were looking at mixed-member proportional, which is kind of a half and half system (though there are still more in the first past the post "half" than the proportional one). I believe you still have to get some minimum percentage of votes nationwide to get any list candidates put in as well.
Confirmed, thanks.
Absolutely. The system had its problems as described, but I still think it would have been better than the current one. Those problems, by the way, could be overcome by having, say, a primary-like vote on the list candidates, where you voted on them by priority. The list candidates themselves could be further subdivided into areas (like per-province) so voters wouldn't have to look at such a large list.
Yeah, I think you'd be surprised. A bunch of my friends (of which a large percentage are not really geeks) have joined that group and are quite aware of the issues at stake.
Ironically, the first to join it was a friend who wants to be an IP lawyer.
The real problem here is the system. Let's take a look at the ratios between the percentage of seats each party got in the election, and their percentage of the national popular vote:
Conservative
Seats: 143/308
Popular Vote: 37.63%
Ratio: 2.03 (More than twice the seats they would have obtained under a 100% proportional system.)
Liberal
Seats: 76/308
Popular Vote: 26.24%
Ratio: 0.94
BLOC Quebecois
Seats: 50/308
Popular Vote: 9.97%
Ratio: 1.63 (Interesting thing here; because voters in Quebec will vote the BLOC in much more often, they're skewed way above other parties even though they're practically running only in Quebec.)
NDP
Seats: 37/308
Popular Vote: 18.20%
Ratio: 0.66 (Screwed once again.)
Independent
Seats: 2/308
Popular Vote: 0.65
Ratio: 0.999 (Oddly proportional.)
Green
Seats: 0/308
Popular Vote: 6.80%
Ratio: 0.0 (Yeah. 6.8% of the vote, 0% of the representation. Good stuff.)
(Source: CBC.ca Election Results)
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.