Canadian Elections!

[Evie]

Such as a solution that's set up to work for 50 years rather than 10.

Throwing a bit of money at the problem now may be effective for people who likely won't be around all that long. The longer you expect those people to be alive, the less efficient the solution becomes, and the more you might have to consider alternative approaches (not necessarily in term of what they get, but in term of how you handle it)

 

[Zelig]

Such as a solution that's set up to work for 50 years rather than 10.

And an example would be?

 

[Evie]

I don't know, Zelig. I'm a law type, not a bureaucrat or sociological expert (and you aren't either).

But off the top of my head I'd point the idea that even if the end result of both solutions might be getting a monthly amount to the person, the way in which you do it might be best handled differently at the government level, and calculated differently for the government books given how long you expect to spend it.

Plus, there's the fact that a lot of "unfit for work" people suffer from partial limitationw that would let them contribute in diverse ways even if they can't really hold a classic job. You likely want a system adressed to youths to encourage them to contribute to the extent of their ability. For elderlies, it's less a priority.

 

[Zelig]

I can't think of any real upside other to that than increased bureaucracy and the ability to target specific voting blocks.

 

[Evie]

See, I'm the opposite. I see having a one-size-fits-all solution that attempt to account for all possible variables as a bureaucratic nightmare with kilometer-long application forms (half or more of which being irrelevant to most applicants), whereas more targeted solutions can focus on the criterias most relevant to their programs, and ignore the other ones or leave them off as special cases.

 

[Zelig]

You can run a GMI with spectacularly little bureaucracy. Institute filing-free returns, mail out cheques to everyone who needs it.

If you want to avoid deadbeats youths, in the worst case, you're left running the same filters for them as you'd be running with an age-discriminatory system anyway.

 

[daft]

Vote Conservative, it's the only logical choice!
If you do not then don't complain later when you see some (or all) of the following:

1. Higher Taxes to pay (mostly payable by middle class, such as You and I)-introduced by both LIberals(of course blaming the fiscally responsible PC at same time!) and the NDP.

2. Brought to light: Illegal Public Tax Money Spenditures (LIBERALS!)

3. Disappearance of Jobs, Major Recession. All blame for such events of course put on Conservatives (HEY! GOTTA BLAME SOMEONE!) - of course this is just a matter of time and would/will be done by (especially) LIBERALS and (quite possibly) the NDP.

4 Lack of Budgetary Balance (in case of Liberals-TOTAL!)

I could also mention raising (Liberal) politicians salaries and blaming all economic problems on the PC, hey! got to have somebody to blame!

There are your Liberals
aka, Justin Trudeau, aka "And the Budget will Balance Itself" and the socialist, welfare/high taxes/chasing foreign corporations outta here-NDP.

You choose, your choice, just don't lament later!

 

[Zelig]

I literally cannot tell if that's satire, or of who.

 

[Evie]

It's either very good satire or very bad politics.

Anyway, the best reason to vote not-conservative is this: they're human. They're human, who have been in a position of power for a decade, and while they may not all have turned corrupt (though some certainly have), they've grown both controlling and complacent. They need to sit this one out so that Harper can step down and his close guard go with him and the conservative party can define its post-Harper identity and seek power again in that guise.

The NDP and Liberals have their flaws, but there are few flaws so large that they justify keeping the one party in power beyond their first decade.

 

[shadowplay]

CBC's vote compass is up for this election:

https://votecompass.cbc.ca/

I always end up aligning most with the Liberals in these tests, even though I don't think I've ever actually voted for them.

My result:

Spoiler :

 

[Evie]

You took time away from EUIIIDW for this? For shame!

I got 82 NDP 79 LPC 76 GPC 74 BQ (surprised how high that was), 45 CPC (no surprise).

85 Mulcair 75 Duceppe (not surprised, I respect him more at least as much as any non-Layton federal-scene politician ; I just couldn't vote for his ideas), 70 May 30 Trudeau 0 Harper.

 

[Zelig]

LPC 61
NDP 58
GPC 56
CPC 51

edit: Removed the leader ratings, it's just an average of the competence/trustworthy scores you give them.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, no wonder you're not feeling particularly stongly pro- any of them if your ideas are that poorly represented.

 

[Arwon]

82 grn
74 ndp
71 lib
36 con

Shocking really.

 

[mech654]

82% grn
72% NDP
67% LPC
34% CPC

Amused at that I and Arwon got the same % for green.

 

[warpus]

 

[Takhisis]

CBC's vote compass is up for this election:

https://votecompass.cbc.ca/

I can't use it if I'm not Canadian.

 

[warpus]

Interactive election map

blue - cons, red - libs, orange - ndp, green - guess

 

[Antilogic]

I've been watching the CBC poll tracker if I haven't been posting in this thread.

So it looks like the polls show the Libs and NDP nearly even with the Conservatives lagging. Is that what the Canadians in the thread expect? Should we expect a change of government at this point, even if it's a minority coalition of NDP and Libs?

 

[Zelig]

I haven't really been following national-level polls, they're not very interesting to me. Looks like Kent Hehr is on pace to get rid of Joan Crockatt in Calgary Centre though, which is fantastic.

My riding already turfed Rob Anders in the nomination, so I feel like that's about as much satisfaction as I should expect on that front.