2008 Races

[TheUnknown 39]

So, I'm reading that Hillary is having a big fundraising event attended by lobbyists in which donors get to meet and chat with the chairs of powerful committees who have endorsed HIllary. This pisses me off so badly.

[Ender 8]

Gee, a Clinton getting donations from big evil men? I never would have imagined...

[Drake 53]

Oh, was there an election in Canada?

Just Ontario. It was our Provincial elections. We voted for our MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament) to represent our area in Toronto. The party with the most representatives/seats in Provincial Parliament gets their leader to become Premier of the province. It's pretty much the exact same thing for when we vote Federal, just on a larger, country-wide scale.

The Liberal party won again in this election.

We also got to vote on a referendum, in which we got to choose between keeping the voting system we have now or changing to a new system. Allow me to explain...

Original System: "First-Past-the-Post"

For the general election on October 10th 2007, Ontario was divided into 107 geographic areas called electoral districts. In each district, voters got one vote to choose which candidate they felt should win a seat in the provincial legislature. One ballot. One vote. In an election using the First-Past-the-Post system, the candidate with the most votes wins and will be the representative for the electoral district in the provincial legislature. After the election, the political party that wins the most electoral districts is asked to form a government.

Proposed System: "Mixed Member Proportional"

Ontario would be divided into 90 geographic electoral districts and the provincial legislature would have 129 seats. 'Local Members' would fill 90 while 'List Members' would fill 39. Voters would vote twice on one ballot: once for a 'Local Member' and once for a political party. In each electoral district, one vote would be used to elect a 'Local Member' using a First-Past-the-Post system. The candidate with the most votes wins. The other vote would be for a political party. Votes for parties will be used to determine the number of 'List Members' each party gets. This is the proportional representation part. Before an election, parties would publicly nominate candidates as 'List Members' and describe how they were chosen. If a political party is entitled to more seats than it won locally, 'List Members' are elected to make up the difference. 'List Members' can only be elected from a political party that received more than 3% of these votes. In the end, a political party's overall share of seats will roughly equal its share of the total votes for parties in the province. The party with the largest number of seats in the legislature, including 'Local Members' and 'List Members', is asked to form a government.

I voted for the new system but it would seem that they didn't do a good job of informing the greater population of it so we're not changing from First-Past-the-Post.

[CorSec 5]

I voted for the new system but it would seem that they didn't do a good job of informing the greater population of it so we're not changing from First-Past-the-Post

Who are the list members be responsible to? What part of the population do they represent? Everyone who voted for that party?

Additionally, parties (with some justification), are the ones controlling who List members are. I feel like the choice is taken away from the voter. You can trust the parties to choose good candidates, but are you certain? What if some List Members seemed like a good choice while others didn't (in the same party). By voting for your "party", you have no direct control over which list members get seats.

Finally, mixed member would likely lead to more minority governments (which have been, historically, less decisive). Compare the election results. There would be a smaller gap between total Conservative and Liberal seats, with more NDP (and some Green?) seats.

The new system is more proportional but not necessarily more effective. I can appreciate the interest in such a system, but I don't think the benefits will outweigh the negatives.

[Andy 60]

A minority government would be a very bad thing. :p

[TheUnknown 39]

So, Obama and Huckabee win Iowa and Romney has won Wyoming. And to Hillary...*pointlaughs*. Go Edwards!

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

*does a Hillary-lost-happy-dance*

[Mara 29]

Yay!

Our primary is next week, and I'm still not completely sure who I'm voting for or if I'm voting.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

go vote and vote against Hillary.

but seriously, go vote.

[TheUnknown 39]

Mara, if you vote in the Democratic Primary, it won't count. Michigan got into trouble with the DNC and was stripped of its delegates.

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to vote for Edwards here in Georgia or try to sabotage the Republican process and vote for Dracula...I mean Romney.

Edited January 8, 2008 by TheUnknown

[Mara 29]

Not but I could vote "uncommitted".

And then we'll send uncommitted delegates to the convention to vote for whoever they please (if they get 15% of the vote) 'cause not all democrats are on the ballot.

And, JM... I really want to vote. I do. But I feel I should be an informed voter. And, up until now, there wasn't anyone I was drawn to. But, of course, that's not enough, either, lol.

I have some serious research to do.

But, no worries, I'm not voting for Hillary.

Or Ron Paul. He's a loony.

[TheUnknown 39]

Ron Paul is batsith crazy. That much we can agree on.

[Mara 29]

I found a web site where you can take this candidate match maker quiz... and (before I weight the issues), it matched me with Dennis Kucinich, lol.

If you want to try it...

Edited January 8, 2008 by Mara

[TheUnknown 39]

McCain has won New Hampshire on the Republican sides. That means they've had three primaries/caucuses and now have three different winners.

It's still tight, but it looks like Hillary might have won on the Democratic side. DAMMIT!!

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

she did. now we need to start praying that someone drops out of the race and backs Obama. :|

[TheUnknown 39]

Several things scare me about Obama:

(1) All of the talk about bi-partisanship. Bi-partisanship is date rape. It's always the Democrats that say that crap and they always get burned. Plus, a compromise that leaves everyone pissed isn't a good idea. See, for example, Bill Clinton's compromise on gays in the military: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Conservatives were pissed that gays were allowed in at all. Liberals were pissed that gays couldn't serve openly. Clinton got hit from both sides.

(2) What does he stand for. Saying "hope" and "change" and singing "kum ba ya" only goes so far. I want to know how you're going to effect change and restore hope.

(3) Can he win? Maybe it's race. Maybe it's mis-information about his religion. Maybe it's ideology. Maybe it's experienced. But could Obama beat Guiliani, McCain, or Huckabee, the three most formidable Republicans, in my opinion?

I'm still an Edwards fan. I think he's both the most electable and the one with the best ideas.

[Mara 29]

I have to kind of agree with that.

It kind of scares me that so many people think Obama is so "cool".. but what happens if he actually wins? I mean, the guy hasn't even had a full Senate term yet. I don't think he has what it takes in the experience area... Not to mention all his ideas.

And of all the Democrats, Edwards I think would be the lesser "evil."

But I'm still mostly confused about the Republicans right now.

Maybe I'll vote green party.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

the reason i say Obama is i think at this point he's got the best chance to beat Hillary. Edwards has finished third twice now, so he's going to need some major momentum to get the nomination.

and who knows? maybe someone who isn't so ingrained in the game is exactly what we need. a fresh, young(er) approach to politics. it has its downsides (people may not be inclined to listen to a thing he says), but it could work. although it is nice to see both sides have strong candidates instead of one side that is clearly stronger than the other.

[TheUnknown 39]

Actually, JM, Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa.

[Drake 53]

You should all just cut your loses and move to Canada, imo.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

Actually, JM, Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa.

*facepalm* i knew that. got mixed up for a sec.

[Ender 8]

You should all just cut your loses and move to Canada, imo.

Trust me, it's in the cards. Canada or the UK or Ireland for me, at the moment.

[Drake 53]

Smart man!

[Mara 29]

You should all just cut your loses and move to Canada, imo.

I like my summers.

[Drake 53]

Are you kidding me? Do you know how close you and I live from one another? Not far in terms of weather. My summers are just as hot as yours.