Canadian Elections!

[Evie]

It should work like the US Senate and some of its clones across the continent do. Instead of only having representatives/deputies/Commons/whatever of which there are more and more for the most heavily popualted areas in the country, and only pandering to them and, in effect, being able to rule with only one region against the others, having a second chamber with an equal number of representatives per largest polity (provinces) means that half the territory (well, their representatives) also has to approve.

Hell, no. Sorry, but the US Senate is just about the last model I'd ape. The notion of regional representation isn't bad per se (matter of fact it's what Canada is supposed to be, with equal representation to four regions rather than each province and territory). But at least canada had the attack of mild sanity to actually use REGIONS rather than provinces for regional representation.

The original idea for Canada,s split was four regions - West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritime - each of 24 seats. This is not demographically balanced, but the theory of it isn't TOO horrible. The four region at the time represented four distinct cultural and geographic area of Canada ; each distinct from the other and while the parity wasn't perfect (the Maritimes never had anywhere near the population of Ontario or Quebec), it wasn't unreasonable.

Then the Maritimes/Atlantic managed to land themselves six extra seats when Newfoundland joined, and none of the other Maritime provinces were willing to let them have seats. Would have made sense to increase Quebec/the West/Ontario to 30 to compensate, but nope, Newfoundland got added as a kind-of-region-but-not. Moreover, "The West" really grew into two distinct regions (British Columbia/the Pacific on one side and the Prairies on the other end), so lobbing them all in one region doesn't make that much sense anymore.

If I had to draw a new regional-representation-senate with 100 seats, it would go something like:

Pacific Region (BC): 18 seats
Prairies Region (AB/SK/MB): 10/4/4 seats, respectively.
Ontario Region: 18 seats
Quebec Region : 18 seats
Atlantic Region (NB/NS/PE/NL): 5/5/3/5, respectively.
Territories: 3 seats (1 each)
First Nations: 6 seat - 1 per region and 1 from the territories.

Ontario is still way underrepresentated compared to their population, but that's regional representation ; they're already in as small a unit as they can be.

Zelig - Harper govt increased spending during the recession, but has been cut-happy ever since.

 

[Zelig]

How many seniors do you actually know whose only - ONLY - income is GIS and OAS? Based on your posts, my guess would be zero. These people are not rich. Based on the 2014 amounts I found, these people get less per month than someone on AISH.

I'm not saying that addressing poverty in all age groups/demographics isn't critical. But do NOT sit there and tell me that all senior citizens are wealthy. They're not.

All white people in Mississippi aren't rich either.

Zelig - Harper govt increased spending during the recession, but has been cut-happy ever since.

2010-2011 is the only year where expenses dropped, and we're still over 10% higher spending per capita than before the recession.

 

[Takhisis]

Right now the senators are effectively appointed by the Prime Minister (officially by the GG, but that's basically just a formality). Alberta had "elections" a few times - completely nonbinding ones piggybacked onto municipal elections, to save time and money - but the PM was not obligated to appoint the winner. I never saw it as anything legitimate, both because it was nonbinding, and because not all parties were represented.

Have the senators actually be elected then, instead of being so horribly similar to the UK House of Lords.

As for "longer terms"... right now, if you're appointed a senator, it's potentially a 45-year career, if you're appointed at the minimum age of 30 and retire at the mandatory age of 75. So I'd say that 45 years is quite long enough.

Oh no, ‘longer’ terms means that US senators and their counterparts further south have terms in office that are 1½ as the President's. It gives you longer cycles. Ultimately it always will rest on the government being composed of honest, capable, well-intentioned people, otherwise any system quickly becomes a sham.

Hell, no. Sorry, but the US Senate is just about the last model I'd ape. The notion of regional representation isn't bad per se (matter of fact it's what Canada is supposed to be, with equal representation to four regions rather than each province and territory). But at least canada had the attack of mild sanity to actually achieve regional equality on the basis of regions (which may or may not include multiple provinces) not arbitrary states.

The US Senate doesn't work because of different reasons. One of them is that ‘states rights’ means that districts will never change. You don't have to tie the Canuckistani Senate 2.0 to the current provincial boundaries, except maybe to ensure that Nunavut and any other aboriginous polities have a voice in the legislature. Copy what's good in the US (e.g. congressional oversight, different levels of government, cosmopolitanism, a judiciary branch separate from the legislative, etc.) and leave the rest behind in the US.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

All white people in Mississippi aren't rich either.

White people in Mississippi have nothing to do with this. That's basically saying that it's okay for my father to go without some of what he needs (inadequate funding and he can't afford to pay for it himself) because there are poor white people in Mississippi.

You haven't answered my question: How many seniors whose only income is GIS/OAS do you know?

 

[Zelig]

White people in Mississippi have nothing to do with this.

You don't see a problem with the governor of Mississippi announcing a program to reduce poverty for white people?

 

[Evie]

I wasn't aware that it was excedingly common for employers in Mississippi to refuse to hire white folk, or for white folk to be physically incapable of working anymore.

2010-2011 is the only year where expenses dropped, and we're still over 10% higher spending per capita than before the recession.

Which mean he spent the cut money elsewhere (his law and order mania, likely), not that he didn't make cuts.

 

[Zelig]

I guess you could exclude the working poor from the poverty reduction program and only accept those white folk who aren't working for whatever reason.

If the goal is "reduce X", it's disingenuous to make a policy that's "reduce X only for subset Y", and it looks especially bad when subset Y happens to be a high-voting demographic.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You don't see a problem with the governor of Mississippi announcing a program to reduce poverty for white people?

I don't CARE about what's going on in Mississippi!

(at least not when it comes to your saying that people like my father don't deserve to have their physical needs met because of some hypothetical people in another country who have absolutely zip to do with this election)

I guess you could exclude the working poor from the poverty reduction program and only accept those white folk who aren't working for whatever reason.

If the goal is "reduce X", it's disingenuous to make a policy that's "reduce X only for subset Y", and it looks especially bad when subset Y happens to be a high-voting demographic.

Okay, I'm going to tell you what I tell Americans who rant at me on social media about the seal hunt or whatever else they're objecting to: Since I personally cannot fix this situation and make it more to their liking, they are free to email, phone, or snailmail the politician(s) of their choice and make their wishes clear.

And so are you. It's easy enough to email Thomas Mulcair, or drop in to the local NDP campaign headquarters in your riding and complain to them about giving more money to poor seniors and not also funding people in other demographics.

If you do that and actually get an answer from Mulcair or the candidate, I'll be surprised since it's rare to get anything more than an automated reply from them. If you want answers from a federal leader, email Elizabeth May. She's the only one who bothers to address the point(s) raised by people who write to her.

But don't tell me that my father should have to deal with reduced funding for things such as oxygen because of poor white people in Mississippi or because you're advocating for people in a different demographic.

 

[Arwon]

The logical thing to do with your Senate would be to make it proportional representation.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Zelig]

I don't CARE about what's going on in Mississippi!

And I don't care about your father. If he's poor enough, he'd get the money from a plan that doesn't specifically target seniors, rather than making a child remain in even more poverty.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283166

Mulcair's geritocracy is a lot like Harper's snowmobile subsidies.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And I don't care about your father. If he's poor enough, he'd get the money from a plan that doesn't specifically target seniors, rather than making a child remain in even more poverty.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283166

Oh. You're just being snide, then. You're talking about hypothetical people, not real people.

My father happens to be a real person, and as far as I'm concerned, his health trumps that of hypothetical people who are either not in this country or who have other options.

Mulcair's geritocracy is a lot like Harper's snowmobile subsidies.

I agree that subsidies for snowmobile clubs is ridiculous. It's like Ralph Klein's love affair with horse racing and going back on the promise to remove VLTs from places that decide they don't want it, because who gives a damn about the social, financial, and health issues that stem from gambling addiction, when the government gets its take of all that lovely money, much of it from people who can least afford to lose it!

But senior citizens like my father are not some frivolous thing like a snowmobile or VLT. My father literally helped build this province, and your attitude is frankly offensive.

 

[Zelig]

Oh. You're just being snide, then. You're talking about hypothetical people, not real people.

My father happens to be a real person, and as far as I'm concerned, his health trumps that of hypothetical people who are either not in this country or who have other options.


I agree that subsidies for snowmobile clubs is ridiculous. It's like Ralph Klein's love affair with horse racing and going back on the promise to remove VLTs from places that decide they don't want it, because who gives a damn about the social, financial, and health issues that stem from gambling addiction, when the government gets its take of all that lovely money, much of it from people who can least afford to lose it!

But senior citizens like my father are not some frivolous thing like a snowmobile or VLT. My father literally helped build this province, and your attitude is frankly offensive.

Canadian children in poverty aren't hypothetical, your attitude is offensive towards them.

Dollars for seniors is exactly like dollars for snowmobiles, it's straight-up vote-buying.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Canadian children in poverty aren't hypothetical, your attitude is offensive towards them.

Dollars for seniors is exactly like dollars for snowmobiles, it's straight-up vote-buying.

You keep on about these hypothetical people in Mississippi, like that should mean something.

So all those cheques people got for their kids a short while ago wasn't just blatant vote-buying from Harper? Of course it was. Were children in poverty excluded from that?

Lots of helpful things get announced during (or before, in Harper's case) election campaigns.

The snowmobiles were a trivial thing. Low-income seniors are not snowmobiles. They're people, just like those children you're obsessed with. I've asked twice now and here's a third time: How many seniors whose only income is GIS/OAS do you know? If you knew any at all, you'd know that they are not rich. They get less per month than an AISH recipient (not that AISH recipients are rich, either).

Mulcair did not say he wanted to give this money to seniors who already have multiple pensions, investments, and property they can sell. Believe it or not, not every senior owns a house.

 

[Zelig]

You keep on about these hypothetical people in Mississippi, like that should mean something.

I haven't mentioned the people in Mississippi in several posts, I don't know what you're talking about.

Mulcair did not say he wanted to give this money to seniors who already have multiple pensions, investments, and property they can sell. Believe it or not, not every senior owns a house.

Believe it or not, they're better off than young people. You haven't presented any compelling reason for why money should be given to seniors in poverty rather than children in greater poverty.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Believe it or not, they're better off than young people. You haven't presented any compelling reason for why money should be given to seniors in poverty rather than children in greater poverty.

Well, my dad does get three good meals per day, I'll admit that. But a few weeks ago I was asked if I wanted to push for him to still get the same amount of oxygen they'd been giving him, since it would require extra funding and he couldn't afford to pay for it himself. Of course he'd get it if they had to take him to the hospital, but if he had it as a matter of course, he wouldn't need the hospital.

Oxygen is the stuff humans require to breathe. Are you telling me these poverty-stricken children are unable to breathe properly?

What are these kids not getting that you're so incensed about, and why are you being so obnoxious as to compare poverty-stricken seniors to toys for rich people (fancy snowmobiles)?

It would sure be nice if you'd bother to answer my question (now asked for the fourth time): HOW MANY SENIORS WHOSE ONLY INCOME IS GIS/OAS DO YOU KNOW?

If you knew any at all, you would understand that these people are NOT rich. They get less than AISH recipients, who are also not rich (at least the single ones).

If these poverty-stricken children are living on the street and eating at soup kitchens, living in the kind of 'welfare motel' I've seen on the news, or in other similar circumstances, I'd agree that something needs to be done about that.

It should not be "either/or" in an ideal world. So why are you ranting at me about it, instead of ranting at Thomas Mulcair? Have you emailed him yet?

 

[Zelig]

Well, my dad does get three good meals per day, I'll admit that. But a few weeks ago I was asked if I wanted to push for him to still get the same amount of oxygen they'd been giving him, since it would require extra funding and he couldn't afford to pay for it himself. Of course he'd get it if they had to take him to the hospital, but if he had it as a matter of course, he wouldn't need the hospital.

Again, how is any of this relevant?

The policy is to give out enough to dollars to lift a certain number people out of poverty, and targeting people most likely to vote.

You're claiming they shouldn't spend the dollars on the people who need it most.

It should not be "either/or" in an ideal world. So why are you ranting at me about it, instead of ranting at Thomas Mulcair?

I'm not ranting, I'm helpfully explaining.

 

[Evie]

Zelig, the idea that the average poor senior is better off than the average poor young person is laughable on the face of it. Yhe average poor young person is healthy, fit for work and thus has a shot of getting out of their poor status The average poor elderly does not. Yes, the Elderly receive more help, because they need it more. It's for the same reason the infirm have an easier time than fit and healthy people getting into welfare - because they need the help more than others.

You're not helpfully explaining.You are making a populist appeal to the young by trying to portray support given to another group as an attack on the young. It's demagogy 101.

 

[Zelig]

Zelig, the idea that the average poor senior is better off than the average poor young person is laughable on the face of it. Yhe average poor young person is healthy, fit for work and thus has a shot of getting out of their poor status The average poor elderly does not. Yes, the Elderly receive more help, because they need it more. It's for the same reason the infirm have an easier time than fit and healthy people getting into welfare - because they need the help more than others.

I still don't see how it's justifiable to pass up on poverty relief someone younger who is in greater need at the present time. If they manage to pull themselves up out of poverty, then great, you've freed up some money to help another person!

 

[Evie]

First off, announcing a program to help one group that need help doesn't mean you won't help the others. It means this program address the needs of a specific group.

Second, one-size-fits-all solutions ("Let's make a program for ALL POOR PEOPLE!") are usually not very good at fixing problems. Not everyone who is poor is facing the same circumstances. Present plans that address specific segment, so you can address the specific need and situation of those segment, rather than pretending everyone who is poor is in the same situation and has the same need.

Third off, again, poor people who have a chance of pulling themselves out of poverty are inherently better off than those who don't have such a chance (eg, people who are no longer capable).

 

[Zelig]

First off, announcing a program to help one group that need help doesn't mean you won't help the others. It means this program address the needs of a specific group.

Second, one-size-fits-all solutions ("Let's make a program for ALL POOR PEOPLE!") are usually not very good at fixing problems. Not everyone who is poor is facing the same circumstances. Present plans that address specific segment, so you can address the specific need and situation of those segment, rather than pretending everyone who is poor is in the same situation and has the same need.

They plan is basically "free money!" If they're going to do that, better off with a guaranteed minimum income.

I don't see how you can not believe that Mulcair's plan is pandering to those who are more likely to vote.

Third off, again, poor people who have a chance of pulling themselves out of poverty are inherently better off than those who don't have such a chance (eg, people who are no longer capable).

Right, and the money you spend on them is automatically inversely proportional to their ability to pull themselves out of poverty.