So, given that these fear mongers (“totally controlled in everything you do”), STILL do not understand how Equalization works – much less the Science of Climate Change, NOR that Canada’s forests due to Fires, Bud Worms, logging and forestry practices have been net emitters of CO2 since 2005, and who espouse some pretty “creative” and self-serving interpretations of the Supreme Court’s rulings regarding the sovereignty and Treaty Rights of First Nations, can we possibly imagine that their economic understanding of separation is any more accurate?
Nah ... probably not.
3 0 0
If almost the entire definition of successfully "Growing UP" is learning to identify with ever larger groups - and to accept ever more responsibility in that larger world, what do we call this bit of insular denial of the lessons from others who have tried this nonsense before us?
I am a citizen of Canada - first, foremost, and always!
0 1 0
FPtP is hierarchical and thus paternalistic by nature - manifest in that "I've got a mandate" nonsense after getting 40% of votes from 60% of the electorate. PR (used in 90 countries, incl. 85% of OECD countries) produces fewer elections, greater policy stability through coalitions, has higher voter turn-out (esp. among younger voters and women), less Income Inequality, greater fiscal responsibility (more surpluses and fewer deficits) and higher economic growth (promoting more broad interest - rather than “special interest” - policies), and greater voter engagement and satisfaction across the political spectrum. It also limits the effect of otherwise exaggerated regional as well as urban-rural differences found in Majoritarian FPtPost systems, as well as decreases skewing election results through Gerrymandering Electoral Boundaries. The question is: "Do we, as Canadian citizens, think our vote should carry equal weight and representation with that of every other citizen's vote?"
2 0 2
FPtP is hierarchical and thus paternalistic by nature - manifest in that "I've got a mandate" nonsense after getting 40% of votes from 60% of the electorate. PR (used in 90 countries, incl. 85% of OECD countries) produces fewer elections, greater policy stability through coalitions, has higher voter turn-out (esp. among younger voters and women), less Income Inequality, greater fiscal responsibility (more surpluses and fewer deficits) and higher economic growth (promoting more broad interest - rather than “special interest” - policies), and greater voter engagement and satisfaction across the political spectrum. It also limits the effect of otherwise exaggerated regional as well as urban-rural differences found in Majoritarian FPtPost systems, as well as decreases skewing election results through Gerrymandering Electoral Boundaries. The question is: "Do we, as Canadian citizens, think our vote should carry equal weight and representation with that of every other citizen's vote?"
2 2 0
FPtP is hierarchical and thus paternalistic by nature - manifest in that "I've got a mandate" nonsense after getting 40% of votes from 60% of the electorate. PR (used in 90 countries, incl. 85% of OECD countries) produces fewer elections, greater policy stability through coalitions, has higher voter turn-out (esp. among younger voters and women), less Income Inequality, greater fiscal responsibility (more surpluses and fewer deficits) and higher economic growth (promoting more broad interest - rather than “special interest” - policies), and greater voter engagement and satisfaction across the political spectrum. It also limits the effect of otherwise exaggerated regional as well as urban-rural differences found in Majoritarian FPtPost systems, as well as decreases skewing election results through Gerrymandering Electoral Boundaries. The question is: "Do we, as Canadian citizens, think our vote should carry equal weight and representation with that of every other citizen's vote?"
1 0 0
Aside from the downloaded costs to - and reduced input by, Municipalities, Bill-54 allows “dark money” through Corporations and Unions into the election process – because Citizens United was SO conducive to improving US Democracy (that “money-as-speech” giving EQUAL voice to all, right?), as well as producing an unworkable Elections Alberta oversight process (a one year deadline – less than anywhere in Canada, to process complaints would mean that NONE of the investigations over the past five years - nor current ones, would be completed in time – making investigations symbolic at best – a UCP signature move). And, if the elimination of vote anywhere provisions and the removal of vouching for voter identification are not Voter Suppression, what are they? As to the change in referendum qualifications, Smith pretty much already explained that she fears the traditional splitting of her Party and subsequent election loss, a move thus serving HERSELF before Albertans - HER signature move!
2 0 0
Of course, because SURELY we would not want an "Environment" Minister who actually CARED about and prioritized the actual ENVIRONMENT! Oh right - Rebecca Schulz ... silly me.
I mean - seriously, Smith is not just "putting the horse before the cart", but willing to sacrifice the life of the horse FOR the cart (a cart which will not carry us anywhere once the horse is dead, or becomes even sicker than we have already made it).
As we used to say in High School in the 1960s: "Small world, small mind.” To which one might then add to that “one-trick-pony” approach: “Thus granting fewer options, and ensuring even bigger failures.” Which – of course, becomes ever more obvious daily ...
6 0 0
Given that poll after poll indicates at LEAST a three-to-one rejection of anything resembling separation from Canada, and given that the option is ALWAYS open to those "secondly-Canadian" to simply do the rest of us the service of moving south (or otherwise), this IS - even at the most simplistic level, a waste of money ... and a distraction from even bigger problems from this relentless UCP kakistocratic exercise in "misgovernance" (of course).
I mean, would not the money perhaps be better spent on new curtains to match the $280,000 carpet in the Premier's office ..?
Hm-m-m ..?
0 0 0
Given that poll after poll indicates at LEAST a three-to-one rejection of anything resembling separation from Canada, and given that the option is ALWAYS open to those "secondly-Canadian" to simply do the rest of us the service of moving south (or otherwise), this IS - even at the most simplistic level, a waste of money ... and a distraction from even bigger problems from this relentless UCP kakistocratic exercise in "misgovernance" (of course).
I mean, would not the money perhaps be better spent on new curtains to match the $280,000 carpet in the Premier's office ..?
Hm-m-m ..?
1 0 0
No listings have been posted by Terry Korman
So, given that these fear mongers (“totally controlled in everything you do”), STILL do not understand how Equalization works – much less the Science of Climate Change, NOR that Canada’s forests due to Fires, Bud Worms, logging and forestry practices have been net emitters of CO2 since 2005, and who espouse some pretty “creative” and self-serving interpretations of the Supreme Court’s rulings regarding the sovereignty and Treaty Rights of First Nations, can we possibly imagine that their economic understanding of separation is any more accurate?
Nah ... probably not.
2 0 0