MyBrainHurts

Oh is that actually the case this time around? I remember the 2017 cuts by revenue mostly affected the top whatever but the poor still had a tax cut, it's just the amount of money saved was, by definition, significantly less than it was for the top earners.

Fully agree with you on Smile 2 vs the OG. I'm super curious to see where things go for the next one!

My Bloody Valentine. Small Canadian slasher that was all but banned on release. My local indie theatre (the Rio!) Played it, with the director rocking a QA after.

For a 70s slasher, it's got surprisingly good gore effects and whatnot. And some of the moat exaggerated Canadian accents I've heard. Solid B movie fun!

This is such a good description that I am almost salivating.

Personally, I've enjoyed it everytime I've been eating them but felt very sick afterwards. Which is fair. If there weren't consequences I would soon have difficulties fitting into a vehicle.

The politicians don't believe it, they just have to say it. The people voting for it see themselves as also getting a tax cut, which they want.

Claiming that choosing large swathes of Europe is my cherry picking is pretty silly.

And you are misunderstanding the point of those examples. It is not just dangerous how close some of these hard right groups are to power, the fact these groups are so popular is in itself worrying.

It is not a sign of a healthy democracy when people are so angry and desperate they give Kickl 29% of the vote. It is a deeply worrying sign when some 20% of Germans are voting for dog whistle neo Nazi party (Alice fur Deutschland is about as blatant as it gets, there's not a German who doesn't know the Nazi slogan was Alles fur Deutschland.

Yes, those democracies are struggling through and bending into contortions to keep functional, non extremist governments working. But this is a sign of Democratic strength in the same sense that coughing up blood is a sign your body is keeping the blood out of your lungs, it's true but it is also a sign that something is seriously wrong.

A system can be great in theory or in different circumstances. But the reality of the moment and the real world evidence suggests we are very lucky to have avoided PR and would do well to continue to do so. We don't have a Wilders, Weidel or Kickl for a reason.

You blithely assume that more voices at the table or more better representation etc leads to better outcomes but what's the proof? You even mentiom Brexit but either don't know or comveniently forget that it was passed with a majority support in a referendum. For crazy but very representative outcomes, look South to California which loves ballot referendums, which are as pure a democratic option as possible. If you've read about the LA fires, you already know that insurance companies have been unable to accurately price the risk of fores because of a referendum preventing insurance companies from raising rates, popular but insane policy.

FPTP and our elected dictatorship creates a balance between the ability of government to pass significant legislation while also being accountable to voters. The real world examples of PR are horrific. It's really not that complicated.

Absolutely! Martin McDonagh is quickly becoming one of my favourite writer/directors.

For a free service, it's kind of impressive how much good stuff there is.

To make it very plain.

Yes, more democracy is a bonus. Let's call that a plus for the PR side. No one is disputing that.

On the downsides are the effect on Canada. I'm a fun uncle for a bunch of my friends' cool kids and I care about the country they'll get.

Some countries have done well historically with PR. But, as we enter incredibly turbulent times with almost half a dozen threats ranging from deadly serious to existential on the horizon, the weaknesses of PR are becoming apparent.

Germany is not only struggling with the AfD but despite being in a recession for almost three years been unable to pass significant legislation, in part as a result of the coalitions required to keep out the AfD. PR is not going well there and I do not want that for the aforementioned children.

Israel has been unable to stop a deeply unpopular war in large part because of PR.

Austria is trying to cobble together a government to keep out an extremist party that won the most votes.

Tusk is struggling to undo the damage wreaked by PiS.

The Dutch are bending over backwards to keep Wilders out.

The Brothers of Italy are running the country.

Times are only going to get tougher. For those groovy kids, I want a government that can effect serious and meaningful change, which FPTP makes more likely. Even though my vote is often less effective, that's a trade-off I'll take to avoid the catastrophes above.

(You are also misremembering 2015, yes, housing was mentioned but mostly in the context of social housing and renters. As you've read through the chat with Avid Amoeba, you're either ignoring or already forgetting those realities which I've already pointed out. Feel free to look at the party platform I already linked.)

You keep claiming that PR leads to “significant costs that outweigh the benefits of more democracy, but you haven’t substantiated those costs beyond vague references to extremism.

You not paying attention or forgetting doesn't mean I haven't demonstrated them:

For an example of how this plays out, look to Israel, where the government is held hostage by a number of small extreme right parties, which keeps the war going farther than most Israelis and defence personnel wanted. There are numerous far right people in cabinet, like Smotrich etc helping to craft and pass legislation.

Giving small extremist groups power is a consequence of PR that is largely mitigated in FPTP. It’s why the AFD doesn’t have a politcally viable analog here.

If you have a system that tends to produce poor outcomes (large coalition governments unable to pass significant legislation, hate groups getting chokeholds on government etc) then those outcomes can outweigh the goodness of democracy.

PR is leading to increasingly bad outcomes (Israel, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland etc.)

We’ve just passed a national school lunch program, are working on affordable day care and expanding healthcare to cover dental work. For better or worse, the Liberals have a very clear record you can vote on, whether you think they allowed too much immigration or you support their work on childcare, they have a clear record that they own and we are thus able to vote on it. This is not possible in a PR system. (What were the things your party actually made happen vs the results of messy compromises with a dozen parties? In the German context, as they’ll need literally every party to avoid working with the AFD, how are you possibly able to apportion blame or praise on any party?)

Think about the extreme right in Israel, who despite being fairly unpopular are pushing ahead some fairly aggressive anti-Palestinian moves. This caaaaaaaaan happen in a fptp system but is much less likely.

I mean, I've shown you the theory and the practice. And we haven't even got into the democratic theory around accountability, the mechanics of why Canadian government would be uniquely dangerous in a PR system, etc.

You suggested that I’m calling you an “extremist” for supporting FPTP, but that mischaracterizes my position. What I’m saying is that opposing proportional representation fundamentally opposes a key democratic principle: that representation should match voting patterns. When you argue against PR, you’re arguing that some people’s votes should count more than others based solely on where they live or who they support. That’s a position that contradicts basic democratic values and is therefore extreme.

Kid, deciding that everyone who disagrees with you on an issue is an extremist is fucking childish. Again, I ask a very simple question, the 40% of New Zealanders who voted to revert back to FPTP, were they extremists?

You keep avoiding my central point about the legitimacy of majority rule. If 60% of voters didn’t vote for the governing party, how can you justify that party implementing policies those 60% of voters oppose?

Please let this actually be your central point.

No, I haven't avoided this. I've said over and over again, that democracy is a great value but there are competing values (like being able to create a government that can look after those people.)

But, the justification for this is pretty simple, those voters are adults, who are capable of making rational decisions. When an election is called, they aren't completely flummoxed as to who stands where in the polls. If say 60% of voters in Ontario believed the Conservatives were a dangerous extremist party, they could vote for the party they believe best positioned to remove them. That's the power and purpose of democracy, accountability. Look what is happening in the national polls, the Conservatives polling numbers haven't changed significantly but what has happened is voters seem to be coalescing around the Liberals.

Accountability is the great strength of the FPTP. For better or worse, the Liberals own their record. They have passed policy and we can judge them on that policy. In a PR coalition of several parties, how to apportion blame or success?

You literally just were in your last message.

Maybe share a quote of what you're misunderstanding?

That’s your opinion, which isn’t supported by the evidence, nor mathematics.

I mean, I've shared examples and theory as to why this is the case, repeatedly.

Yes, using the notwithstanding clause was considered extreme

Again, if you're going to accuse the Ontario Conservative party of being extremists, that's a pretty ridiculous bar. You should look at actual extremist parties, like the AfD, Die Linke, FPO etc. Lumping in the Ontario conservatives with those groups makes it even harder to take you seriously.

You actually don’t care about people and their ability to govern themselves. I cite the Supreme court reference question on Quebec’s secession, in which the court states Canada would have no basis to deny Quebec to self govern, if that’s what they decided – on the basis of international law. You are the one who is out of touch with reality. It’s not “hey this is more democratic” it’s that people have the right to self-determination. It makes no sense for a minority to govern on the behalf of the majority. A point that you have not been able to refute, except literally throwing democracy to the fire.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, besides misusing the word literally. Somehow me being a fan of FPTP means I hate democracy or something?

Under your own logic, extremists are difficult to elect, so under a PR system, extremists will always have less than majority (by inherently being extremist), meaning they will never pass legislation.

I have no idea what "logic" you're using. Maybe... Do you not understand how legislation is typically passed in a PR system? Basically, it's very rare for a government to form a majority under PR, so they make deals with other parties to work together as part of what's called a coalition government, under which the parties trade priorities etc. For an example of how this plays out, look to Israel, where the government is held hostage by a number of small extreme right parties, which keeps the war going farther than most Israelis and defence personnel wanted. There are numerous far right people in cabinet, like Smotrich etc helping to craft and pass legislation.

you’ve become the very thing you’ve so deeply despise, an extremist who thinks it’s acceptable, even preferable, that people are denied their democratic rights.

Sorry, you want me to respond to you deciding that I am an extremist for supporting FPTP? What a bizzare stance. Because I understand the consequences of PR I'm an extremist for being opposed to it? Out of curiosity, were the 40% who voted to return to FPTP in New Zealand also extremists?

Or do you not understand what extremism is? You seem to use the word like trump uses rigged, everything you don't like is extremism.

Ohhh, good call!