• MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The reality is that being the leader sucks and meeting in the town square regularly is hard work. People just want to vote for (or maybe not even that much) who they think is the best dictator and let the the dictator do his thing […] We’ve tried to hack that onto FPTP over the years, but it was never designed for that mode of use, and as you would expect the results are dismal. Indeed, we do need a new system if we want to not have to express our will.”

    Was there something in that which was not clear?

    What you’re saying is a strange, fantasy that has no connection to reality.

    Honestly, I am unsure of what this is trying to say. My best interpretation is that it is still trying to point out that our bastardized attempt to turn FPTP into something it is not has failed, but that would just be repeating the quote quoted above it, so clearly I have missed the mark.

    Sorry…I’m not interested in talking about your fantasies. We really need to discuss the reality of the Canadian political situation.

    Have a good day.

    • Rocket@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We really need to discuss the reality of the Canadian political situation.

      Well, no. The context of discussion centres around an earlier commenter’s claim that “We need a system that truly reflects the will on the majority of Canadians.” That cannot discuss the reality of the Canadian political situation as it is fundamentally forward looking to a reality which does not yet exist. FPTP, used as it was designed, is very well suited to achieving what is stated.

      But it does mean that the people have to express their will, and they have proven that they don’t want to. They prefer to spend time focusing on their job, their family, friends, writing internet comments, etc. And fair enough. They want to hand control to a higher power and get back to their individual lives. FPTP is not at all suited to that.

      • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        FPTP, used as it was designed, is very well suited to achieving what is stated.

        No, it isn’t, as I said above. The Harper government was elected three times with less than 40% of the popular vote and did all the things that Conservatives do, ran up the deficit, ran up the debt, cut taxes for the rich and corporations, cut services for everyone else, burned decades of scientific research and muzzled government experts to push his christofascist dogmatic agenda, passed unconstitutional laws as a dog whistle to his christofascist base then spent millions of dollars defending them to the Supreme Court only to have 100% of those unconstutitional laws struck down. How is that representing the majority of Canadians when then had the support of less than 40%?

        The current Liberal + NDP agreement government far better represents the will of the people but it’s a quirk of the FPTP system.

        • Rocket@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Harper government

          Yeah, no. The fact that you can actually name the dictator tells that this is not FPTP as it was designed. That is how it has come to be used, because people don’t want to express their will, but that has already been talked about to death.

          Again, the FPTP system was designed to have the people select one representative who gathers locally to talk about their concerns and objectives with the local people. The representative then takes the result of that to Ottawa to combine with all of the other localities that have done the same to reach an ultimate consensus. The representative’s actions in Ottawa are recorded to make sure he has honoured what took place locally.

          That is not how we use it. It has been bastardized to the point that it makes no sense. But we could if wanted to have the will of the majority represented. There is nothing stopping us other than doing the democratic work a democracy expects. The only possibly better way to have the will represented is to have us all travel to Ottawa and all gather together. That doesn’t scale so well, though, and it’s a long way from Vancouver.

          The current Liberal + NDP agreement government far better represents the will of the people but it’s a quirk of the FPTP system.

          To be fair, it’s also quirky that you have been able to determine the will of the people as they don’t usually want to express their will. Typically they’d rather let someone else figure it out. Hence how we got here.

          • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that you can actually name the dictator tells that this is not FPTP as it was designed.

            You see? This is the kind of nonsense that is disconnected from reality. Harper was freely and fairly elected and was defeated in a free and fair election. He was nothing approaching a dictator.

            I’m simply not willing to continue to discuss this with you if you’re not making arguments that are connected to reality.

            Have a good day.

            • Rocket@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Harper was freely and fairly elected and was defeated in a free and fair election.

              The only time Harper was not elected in a Canadian federal election was the first one he participated in. He resigned from politics about six months after his last election win. Maybe you are trying to imply that the resignation was a defeat? But that did not happen during the election.

              Are you, maybe, talking about an election other than the Canadian federal election?

              He was nothing approaching a dictator.

              It sure seemed like you were trying to say that he had total control over the country at one time. I do not disagree. If that is not the case, why did you bring him up?

                • Rocket@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Funny, as I stopped having a position a while ago. I long moved to trying to figure out your position as it is in no way clear.

                  Some pretty simple questions in that last comment that would help clarify things. Is there a reason you are afraid to answer them?

                  • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Your positions are so absurd that there is no chance to have a reasonable conversation.