FPTV ep. 8: Electoral Reform - Majority Whim vs. Reason

[Shular67]

I find it funny that I disagree with his reasoning, but not necessarily with his initial premise. I believe that a majority government IS more effective than a coalition of minorities, but not because of some "whim vs ethics" argument. It's simply that each party has its own agenda, and a lesser party can hold a coalition hostage by refusing to compromise. And since the two biggest parties would never work together, the power ends up in the hands of the third (i.e. NDP).

[Slorrin]

He seems to define "ethical" goverment as 'a small minority imposing its will on the majority, with no accountability"  but "emotional mob rule" governemnts as 'governments where multiple viewpoints are considered and people must compromise their stances to strike a balance"... he's like george bush.. he labels things the EXACT opposite of what they are.

[democracyisdead]

why isn't there a 3rd option on the ballet stating "none of the above"????

The problem isn't the reps, it's the policies. I think it took McGuinty 2 days in office before he stated he would not honour his promises.

This referendum an illusion of choice.

Direct Democracy enables the population to hold representatives accountable for their actions.

Provocateur cops, officials failing to investigate, a senate that won't investigate?

This bullshit reform is a distraction.

5to1 - fuckin A

[jasondiceman]

He assumes a coalition would not be ethical, but human ethics is a common bond between all people that crosses party politics.

Reason is a subjective judgment.

Negotiation is required when we live in a pluralistic society.

I don't trust this guy at all.

-jd

[lonewolf1369]

you're wrong when you consider personal choices. Fact is, libertarianism, idea that we should do what we want as long as it doesn't hurt others, is the best idea. This party is the most libertarian and therefore the most ethical. All the others want forced taxation, drug bans, monopoly services, nanny state..

[amoureuxdefleur]

I've lived under MMP in New Zealand for the past 11 years and I'm satisfied that you're wrong in your presumption that minorit governments can't be "rational". Each party brings to the table its values and goals and the governance rendered is basd on what they have in common. It is a very rational process and ethically, it is superior in so far as the process is more open and transparent that one-party caucus negotiations, which are usually hidden.

[PaulMcKeever]

Processes aren't rational: thoughts are. Open-ness and transparency are not a guage of ethical conduct: rationality is.

[VoteForMMP]

In a PR system, you can have one-party majority governments if more than 50% of voters support that party. Your presumption that only ONE party can be rational, but more than one party can not is unfounded and unsupportable. If you allow that more one party can govern rationally and ethically, in turn, then you're left to explain why they cannot do so together. Ethics have nothing do with policy.

[PaulMcKeever]

The fact is that the MMP makes single-party majority governments the rare exception. Government by consensus - which is the essence of minority government - is NEVER government by rational thought. Majority whim is not evidence of rationality and, given the political programmes proposed by most political parties in Ontario, majority whim would most certainly lead to irrational government policy.

[amoureuxdefleur]

Youre presumption that will of the majority is a "whim" isn't supportable. Why is it a "whim"? I'll need to hear more than becasue you say so. I say the opposite, based on 11 years of first-hand experience of MMP.

[PaulMcKeever]

A whim is a want that need not be consistent with what nature demands of a person who seeks to live and be happy. Majority rule is not a replacement for a commitment to the facts of reality and to logic.