Your political views

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I ended up taking that test anyway and it showed that I am rather conservative by Canadian standards but that is just because I am anti-deficit, pro-jobs, and pro-energy. As you can see, the lightly shaded area is rather big because I don't have strong emotions on some of these things.

--Ocram

[Zelgadis 638]

Typical, everyday Liberal...oops, wait...make that on this test a Canadian Liberal.  

 

That's the thing... "Canadian Liberal." The definition of that is quite different from what Americans term as a liberal. After all, the ACA is often painted as communism run amok in the US. In Canada, it looks positively right-wing. 

 

Right now, the PC Party is losing. They have tried to put on an American-style right-wing agenda and it's falling flat. The thing is, by all rights, they should be winning in a landslide. The Liberal party has been in charge for over ten years now and they've long worn out their welcome. However, the other major choice, the PCs, is putting out a collective "OH HELL NO" from the Ontario electorate. If the PCs had a more moderate agenda, they'd win in a cakewalk. But, no, their leader (who looks like Mr. Bean, btw) is an idiot. Seriously, I haven't seen a campaign this incompetent since Dukakis in 1988. The best the PCs can hope for is a minority government, if they're lucky.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Here we are, my completely irrelevant Canadian political compass:

 

 

I'm actually considering throwing my vote away to the Green candidates when I return to the States next year.  Either them or the Libertarians because I like to cause cognitive dissonance in others from time to time.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I expect another Liberal minority in Ontario.  My hope is this:  Liberals first, Conservatives a distant second, NDP wiped out.  That would be a Liberal majority.  The federal Conservatives need a really good scare.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm actually considering throwing my vote away to the Green candidates when I return to the States next year.  Either them or the Libertarians because I like to cause cognitive dissonance in others from time to time.

 

Indeed, I have developed a habit of voting for third party candidates whenever one is available. I live in a predictably blue city in a predictably blue state, so there's no real competition in our elections anyway. Might as well support the cause of wanting a viable third party.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You would have had a wonderful time in yesterday's election in my riding.  There were actually ten candidates.  And the winner is:

 

The Liberals with a majority.  The get to rule for four years.

[jmsepe 2,040]

Ei, I got authoritarian leftist. Not much to be bothered though since I am not surprised. But I wonder how accurate these tests are since most of the times, political views vary from issue to issue and to generalize all issues would be wrong, imo. I myself take the issue into to account and the possible options before even considering what my political view is. After all, there are different efficient solutions to every problem there is. 

[Zelgadis 638]

You would have had a wonderful time in yesterday's election in my riding.  There were actually ten candidates.  And the winner is:

 

The Liberals with a majority.  The get to rule for four years.

 

I believe I had somewhere between 7 and 8 candidates to pick from. Four of them were either viable or semi-viable. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Canadian elections are such fun.  Anybody can run if they can pay in the deposit, which is a rather trivial amount.  Most splinter candidates are guaranteed at least one vote (their own) but if they don't get a specified percentage they lose their deposit.

[Haljackey 17,405]

Canadian elections are such fun.  Anybody can run if they can pay in the deposit, which is a rather trivial amount.  Most splinter candidates are guaranteed at least one vote (their own) but if they don't get a specified percentage they lose their deposit.

 

Maybe so but our first-past-the-post system is flawed and makes it nearly impossible for anyone outside the major parties to win a seat.

 

The Liberals won 55% of the seats with 38.65% of the vote. The Greens got 4.84% of the vote but won 0 seats.

 

We had a referendum in 2007 to introduce a small amount of proportional representation but it failed miserably.

 

 

 

 

My riding only had 5 candidates, the Freedom Party being the only fringe party. They are extreme right but also liaise-fare, meaning they are like the Republican Party in the US without being crazy about police/security. It's an interesting concept. My riding went NDP again, meaning we pretty much have no say in the new government .

 

...Although we might get a true high-speed rail line from Toronto to London. One can dream!

[astronelson 339]

The Australian Senate ballot papers can be very long. In some states they can feature over 100 candidates and be over 1 metre long. You can, if you so wish, vote by ranking candidates in order of preference, or vote for 1 party and let the party's preference deals determine where your vote ends up.

 

These are "voting below the line" and "voting above the line" respectively, in reference to the line on the ballot paper that separates the two sets of boxes used for numbering.

 

We don't generally have to do this more than once every 3 years.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Despite what some people think, our electoral system isn't broken so doesn't need to be fixed. 

 

If people don't vote they get the government they deserve. 

 

Proportional representation is utterly silly.  Why should someone get a seat he didn't contest? 

 

And remember, this election had more voters than the last one with just over 50% of eligible voters.  Everyone who didn't vote got their just desserts, eh?  Wonder how many of them were first time voters who were just to afraid to go to the polls?

[Zelgadis 638]

I don't believe proportional representation is necessary. However, I do believe it is absolutely necessary that nobody should ever win an election with less than 50% of the vote. To that end, I'd be wholly in favor of an instant runoff system. 

 

For those who don't know, that is a system where, rather than voting, you rank your candidates from best to least. Your top choice is counted. Then, if your top choice is not in the top two, your second choice is counted, and so on.

[astronelson 339]

I don't believe proportional representation is necessary. However, I do believe it is absolutely necessary that nobody should ever win an election with less than 50% of the vote. To that end, I'd be wholly in favor of an instant runoff system. 

 

For those who don't know, that is a system where, rather than voting, you rank your candidates from best to least. Your top choice is counted. Then, if your top choice is not in the top two, your second choice is counted, and so on.

 

Under 25% of those eligible to vote in some cases, given Nonny's comment about just over 50% of the electorate turning out (and this being higher than last election).

 

Surely compulsory voting is not quite so terrible? Having 75% of the electorate not support you is no way to get into power.

[Zelgadis 638]

If voting is voluntary and one chooses not to, that's their perogative. I get why other countries make it compulsory. However, if it's voluntary, and we're talking about an instant runoff system, only people who choose to vote can get counted in the percentile. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I still say its not broken, so it needn't be fixed.  Worked fine for 147 years so far.

[mrsmartman 200]

I am a liberal yet pragmatic person.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

None of the countries mentioned, nor this one have democracy.  The U.S. is a plutocratic oligarchy disguised as a constitutional republic. 

 

The U.K. is a Parliamentary Monarchy and has no official constitution using precedent only. 

 

Canada is a constitutional monarchy as of 1982.  Prior to that is was similar to the U.K. governed under the British North America Act.

 

The only democracy I can think of is Switzerland, and I am not sure about that.

 

All this prattling on about democratic this and that is twaddle.

[AkemiAzula 280]

People tend to be unable to make the right choice. Lets hand the reins to the masses of smoking drinking wifebeating speeders. Makes sense.

Personally im in favor of a meritocracy entirely purged of corruption through firm measures of strict accountability.

[mrsmartman 200]

Yes. Substance should be over form.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

[this form of government] is the least worst we've tried so far according to Sir Winston Churchill.

 

The American experiment doesn't seem to be any better.  The Soviet one was a flop.  Any suggestions?

[mrsmartman 200]

You are lucky man.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You are lucky man.

In what way?

[mrsmartman 200]

 

You are lucky man.

In what way?

 

Canada is rich in resources compared to its density of population. UK is a strong power since the industrial revolution and is an early capitalist country. Although Canadian soldiers were involved in the World Wars, the physical location of Canada is far away from Europe so that the destruction was minimal.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You could say the same for any country divided from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean.  Our merchant marine and Royal Canadian Navy bore the brunt of the U-Boat war in the Atlantic.  Sometime when you are nearby, you should drop into the Juno Beach war museum.

[mrsmartman 200]

You could say the same for any country divided from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean.  Our merchant marine and Royal Canadian Navy bore the brunt of the U-Boat war in the Atlantic.  Sometime when you are nearby, you should drop into the Juno Beach war museum.

I appreciate the efforts made by the Canadians during the second world war.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Thank you.

[hamsterTK 93]

People tend to be unable to make the right choice. Lets hand the reins to the masses of smoking drinking wifebeating speeders. Makes sense.

Personally im in favor of a meritocracy entirely purged of corruption through firm measures of strict accountability. 

 

 

Artificially creating standards is the opposite of true meritocracy. The gatekeepers who decide who can lead and who can't will also tend to abuse their power...

 

Meritocracy also assumes everyone has equal opportunity but are not equals. What does equal opportunity mean exactly then, anyways? If I lead society onto a basketball court and say "Dunk the ball in the hoop and I will give you $500, everyone gets to try therefore you all have an equal opportunity to win the money", now what does the word "equal" mean exactly for people who are 5 feet tall and have knees made of glass? Should the basketball hoop be lowered to give everyone a chance, making the action meaningless? Do we raise the hoop much higher than normal game regulations, so only a tiny number of people can do it? Is there even such a thing as an objective goal here, and then who is the coach deciding how the goal is adjusted and how does he gain from its setting?

 

I believe in more of a "do-it-ocracy". It's interesting to see how open-source software projects and some businesses operate. The guy who knows the most and contributes tends to naturally gain leadership because they are the most indispensable member of the team, and may gradually set it's course as long as it fits in the main parameters as set by the team. This is not a "should work" but a "how it works" if the conditions allow it. Sometimes normal politics does work like this, and when it does we should encourage it.

 

As far as equality, society should be equal according to the principal that a rising tide should lift all boats, but people who want to accomplish things and receive some personal reward from them be able to do so. There is an optimal ratio of wealth distribution, determined by a dynamic process, whereby the government tries to maximize tax revenue by not driving away business but still raising enough.

 

 

I should probably mention; as an American, my responses for "should the corporate tax be lowered" and "should we build oil pipelines blah blah" are going to be yes and yes despite being a liberal, because in the US reforming the dysfunctional corporate tax code and closing loopholes is a fairly rational bipartisan idea that will probably result in increased revenues. I don't really know how Canada compares and I certainly don't believe in lowering taxes for ideological reasons. Also I live in an area and am in a field that benefits from the (responsible) oil and gas industry, just full disclosure here. Again, I think Canada is actually worse on the environment, and my opinion would be different if I was actually a Canadian and a had a tar sand clusterf*** in my backyard.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I never said everyone was equally good at dunking. Everyone isnt equal period.

Meritocracy is logical. Giving idiots power alingside useful people is illogical.

[hamsterTK 93]

Meritocracy is logical. Giving idiots power alingside useful people is illogical. 

 

 

You didn't get my argument.

 

Define idiot. Create a foolproof test that decides if an individual is 'worthy' or not. It has to be objective, not based on your personal standards. You can't. It's impossible. Any test you will create will biased by your own intentions.

 

Now why should I, you, or anyone, defer to some leader who will choose unilaterally who will be disenfranchised and who will be the power elite?

 

Oh, and it's a bit ironic isn't it? For this to happen, all the "idiots" must grant said leader power. By doing this, idiots have determined the fate of society, and it will be shaped based on their ignorance. Or the leader seized power by his own accord, suggesting that the universal truth is might makes right, and again making a lie out of the concept of political meritocracy as a philosophical ideal.

 

Here's an thought. Let people who do things not just talk, have demonstrated how useful they are, and can articulate good ideas step up as natural leaders. Seems much better if you ask me.