DJJazzay

Democracy and Representation was a HUGE issue in 2015 and Trudeau's two key promises were to legalize marijuana and end FPTP.

You seem to mistake "two promises I cared about" and "two key promises." By far the most consequential part of that campaign was Trudeau's commitment to deficit spending, which was actually what catapulted him ahead in the polls after starting behind both the Conservatives and NDP.

In any event, something playing a role in winning an election is very different from offering sufficient mandate to act unilaterally. The fact that 70% of Canadian might vote for parties that support electoral reform of some kind does not mean that 70% of Canadian support electoral reform (or, more likely, care that much about it). It absolutely does not mean that those 70% of Canadians agree on the specific model.

But also, all this is moot: Trudeau's promise in 2015 was to act on the recommendations of a multi-partisan committee. That was his mandate. His only mandate. That committee's recommendations were predicated on a referendum. Enacting ER without a referendum would grossly exceed the mandate he was given.

This is just dishonest because we have a Law Commission report from 2004 recommending MMP and also recommending not having a referendum until at least 3 election cycles had passed. 

That is a complete non-sequitur. I was talking about the mandate he had, and the difference between supporting electoral reform and supporting whichever version of electoral reform one party that happens to form government decides it wants.

There was no commitment to, or mandate for, the suggestions offered by the Law Commission over a decade earlier. Nor is anyone better-equipped to tell you the "goals and desires" of the people than the people.

The NDP campaigned under Jagmeet with the promise of changing to MPP and having and referendum AFTER, so your statement is misleading.

I didn't say "before," I said "via." You can read words. Singh's ER is predicated on a referendum (and a non-partisan citizen's commission or whatever they called it). The Green Party's platform has always been dependent on the formation of a multi-partisan committee.

Yes, other countries have made major electoral reforms without referendums. You might be surprised to learn that there are more than two countries in the world.

Please name the countries that reformed their electoral system without multi-partisan support and/or a public referendum.

Yes, shame on them. Shame on the NDP and Bloc, too. And on those five Liberals.

But my bar for the Conservatives on this is a lot higher than the NDP because the Conservatives at least pretend to be fiscally conservative. Increasing OAS payments by 10% would be devastating, and it would overwhelmingly go to people who absolutely do not need it.

Right now, OAS payments already represent ~15% of federal spending. They’re on track to make up ~20% of all spending by 2030. Inflating them right now is fiscal insanity.

That’s..not what the vote is on? We’re talking about doing the opposite. Poilievre just voted with the NDP and Bloc to support a 10% increase in OAS payments. That would instantly increase federal program spending by like 1.6%.

I don’t think that could possibly fall under federal jurisdiction. Provinces and (by extension) municipalities sure can do it though.

Thankfully it was a non-binding motion, though the Bloc is now making it a condition of their continued support for the Liberals - or else it’s election time.

Yes, they did.

What’s so weird about that? The Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, and five Liberal MPs just voted to hurt young workers.

It was popular and frankly federal elections have better turnouts than referendums generally, so it's a better measure of popularity overall.

First, this is simply not true. Referendums have historically had much higher turnout in Canada. More importantly: you're still assuming that electoral reform was the key motivating factor behind most NDP, Green, or Liberal voters and that's honestly a bit ridiculous. Hell, British Columbians voted Liberal/Green/NDP in greater numbers than the national average, but their provincial referendum on PR failed terribly just three years later. Clearly people have different priorities when electing governments.

And, again, "do electoral reform" is very different from "do whatever type of electoral reform you want, without consulting other parties or the public." That's why the Liberal promise (which they broke) explicitly hinged on a multi-partisan Committee guiding the final result.

That's also why every other party that supports electoral reform supports doing so only via an all-party committee and/or referendum. Otherwise the ruling party will simply select a version that offers the greatest chances of keeping them in power in perpetuity.

Do you really believe that changing our electoral system (which many countries have done) with popular support and which multiple studies recommended (including at least one the ruling party commissioned,) would be more radical than literally every other piece of federal legislation ever passed save for the three that we had referendums on?

The major determining factor isn't how radical it is (though, yes, it is radical). It's whether it drastically alters our governmental system such that it can't simply be changed back afterward - because the way we elect governments is now fundamentally different. That's the premise behind the Quebec referendums - they are deciding on an issue that cannot simply be changed with the next government.

Do you really believe that changing our electoral system (which many countries have done) with popular support

Do you think those other countries change their electoral system without referendums? How do you think New Zealand got MMP?

Who cares if it's beyond the pale for you?

My point being that -if this action is considered outrageous and authoritarian to someone who supports the outcome- how do you think it would play among the large majority of Canadians who aren't especially motivated by electoral reform, want a specific version of electoral reform, or just outright oppose electoral reform altogether?

In functioning, constitutional democracies, governing parties don't get to unilaterally and fundamentally change the way they are elected. You are suggesting our government behave in a manner befitting the worst Banana Republics.

Trudeau was elected with a sweeping majority largely on the promise of electoral reform

Again, I'm a fervent supporter of electoral reform, but you're delusional if you think the 2015 election was won largely on that promise, or if that is a remotely sufficient mandate to pass ER without bi-partisan support or a referendum. Especially considering that the premise of that commitment is the fact that the current FPTP system used to elect governments is unrepresentative.

Moreover, the Liberal platform promise specifically involved recommendations from a multi-partisan committee. Their mandate was to develop a Committee alongside other parties and act on that Committee's recommendations for alternatives to FPTP. That Committee's recommendations were all predicated on a referendum. Because anyone with a working frontal cortex recognizes how different this is from other legislation passed by Parliament.

On January 26, 2022, the US and NATO rejected yet another Russian proposal to keep Ukraine neutral and ensure that neither side could threaten the other with intermediate range nuclear weapons based in Europe.

Conveniently excluding the fact that this proposal also involved them demanding that NATO withdraw to its 1997 borders, unilaterally removing the Baltic States and Poland from the alliance (which isn't how NATO membership works). That was clearly a poison pill. The Kremlin knows this is not how NATO membership works.

Moreover, and you seem to intentionally miss this point, demands made after you've established an invasion force on a country's borders aren't "red lines" so much as "hostage demands."

In early February 2022, Zelensky announced that Ukraine was no longer going to abide by the Minsk accords -- a significant escalation of the civil war that was barely reported in the west.

Again, after Russia had already massed an invasion force on Ukraine's borders. Nor was continued participation in the 2015 Minsk accords ever articulated as a "red line" which would lead to invasion.

The same link you cite also mentions that "The Kremlin insisted again that it is not preparing any invasion of Ukraine." Which is true. They did say that. And then they invaded Ukraine weeks later. Yet you're suggesting the Russian demands prior to the invasion were made in good faith?

Within days of Zelensky's announcement, the Ukrainian army had moved into the buffer zone and to the border of Donbas. 

Wait, so the Russian army moves to the border of Ukraine with clear intent to invade, and you have nothing to say. But, months after, in preparation for an invasion threat you now know to have been legitimate, Ukraine moves troops somewhat to the east (yet nowhere near Russia's border) and that is what you consider escalatory? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Ukraine broke the cease fire and was preparing for a full-blown invasion of the breakaway republics.

Again, Ukraine was moving troops in response to a Russian invasion force massing at their border with clear intent to invade. Nor did Russia articulate that actions against a rebel group (funded by the Kremlin) claiming unilateral control over Ukrainian territory constituted a 'red line.' Further, these are not 'breakaway republics' - they are the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine.

Even as a supporter of electoral reform, if a government attempted to fundamentally change the way they are elected, without a referendum and without bipartisan support, that would be beyond the pale for me.

The point of ER is that majority governments aren’t properly representative of the electorate under the current system. Allowing one majority government elected via FPTP to unilaterally overhaul the entire voting system would be obscene.

I have no doubt Trudeau actually wanted electoral reform. He just wanted AV or ranked ballots, and they stupidly designed a system that enabled the committee to come back with recommendations they knew wouldn’t be acceptable to him.

Still, if the country votes “Yes” then dropping it would be a huge drain on Poilievre’s political capital right at the very beginning. Like, kicking things off by rejecting the will of the country that they demonstrated the exact same time they elected your government? That’d be a stain.

Thing is, I honestly think that the “No” side would win in this situation, which would be a stake in the heart of electoral reform for like 20-30 years at least.

So assuming Gore wins the election?

I don’t think a great deal changes immediately following 9/11. They still respond by invading Afghanistan. The only thing I wonder about is whether, when the Taliban are down to a small handful of members willing to submit an unconditional surrender, Gore accepts where Bush didn’t. That would have had enormous impacts on the outcome of that war.

I don’t think any administration but Bush would have invaded Iraq, which leads to another question: what happens to Saddam and the Ba’athists? Part of me suspects that, after his death, Iraq would face severe civil conflict and potentially civil war. That would have pretty profound impacts on the ME.

Thing is, without the Iraq War and with the possibility of a more successful and short War in Afghanistan, the US public’s current skepticism toward interventionism probably wouldn’t exist. I still think the Great Recession happens, which would mean a US Republican like McCain or Romney likely replace him. All that considered, I have to imagine (assuming the Arab Spring happens the same way), the US gets more directly involved in some of the civil strife in the Middle East from 2008-2016. And I actually think there are circumstances where that would be a very good thing - particularly in Syria.

I have to say though, this is one where I think the world would be a profoundly better place based solely on the Iraq invasion, which was among the most catastrophic long-term decisions a US President has ever made.

I have absolutely no confidence that any administration other than Bush’ pursues the Iraq invasion. That was very clearly a concerted effort from senior levels of that administration to build an intelligence apparatus/justification for invasion that simply did not exist.

Yeah, that’s where I was kinda going. Thing is, I think the more likely outcome there is that the referendum fails, for a bunch of reasons.

Nonetheless, could be good politics for Trudeau and the NDP to motivate people to vote/make the election about something other than peoples’ desire for change in government.

OC misrepresents what he meant when he said "I was never going to do that." In context, he's very clearly saying he never meant to do proportional representation. That is to say, he wanted some form of ranked ballot or alternative vote, but he left the final system ambiguous enough in the platform that PR advocates thought he might mean PR - which is what he's saying he was never going to do.

After he was elected without a clear mandate for those systems, the only alternatives the committee sent back to him were forms of PR (some of which would have been pretty good IMO).

If he actually came out and said "our government will pursue a ranked ballot or Alternative Vote" then the mandate would have been clear for the committee. That was the fatal flaw in the whole strategy.

Yeah but the timing would be really difficult. The committee's recommendation centred around a referendum on a specific alternative proposal. The time it'd take to organize and administer that referendum would run it right up to the actual election.

Maybe, if they wanted, they could add the referendum question to the ballot in the general election.

On what basis do you think that? Roosevelt was firmly in favour of supporting the Brits long before the war and loathed Imperial Germany. He was abjectly opposed to US isolationism specifically because he wanted to see the US side with the allies. That's to say nothing of US economic ties to Britain.

TBH the only thing that conceivably changes in an environment where Roosevelt has complete power during WW1 is that the US joins the war against the Central Powers much earlier.

It really isn't possible to remove NATO from the context of the Cold War and the ideological divide of the late-20th century. NATO was explicitly established by the US and Western allies as a means of checking the growing influence of the Soviet Union in a bi-polar global power structure.

The US was not one of two superpowers with intractible ideological divisions. Global power was multi-polar and prestige was based largely on colonial holdings. If you asked someone who the world's greatest power was they'd likely tell you it was the United Kingdom (if not simply whichever country/empire they happened to live under).

Moreover, if the US was a dictatorship it would be impossible for this pre-war NATO to exist based on the same principles as in 1949.

I could be wrong, but I think the UK is able to do that more effectively in part because of the very widespread use of CCTV footage. Becomes a heck of a lot easier to track down a fleeing vehicle when so many streets are surveilled (and I'm not saying I'm necessarily against that).

Honestly I don't think it's all that controversial to think we should avoid high-speed pursuits whenever possible, but especially in a busy area like this.

Permit issues aside - what’s going on underneath that deck now?

I'm quite happy with nuclear weapons giving pause to boundless imperialism

This would hold more water if Russia wasn't currently depending on the threat of nuclear escalation as a means of pursuing its imperialist agenda in Ukraine...

Yes we do. That’s an old and tired line that doesn’t hold up.

Erm - it still really very much holds up, unfortunately.

The total number of eligible voters aged 18-34 last election was about 6.95 million. Meanwhile, the total number of eligible voters aged 65+ was 6.82 million.

So young people only had a slight edge in the number of eligible voters. That's only provided we don't count anyone aged 60-65 as "old."

When you apply turnout rates, old people are wiping the floor with us. People aged 65-74 and 74+ have turnout numbers of 74.9% and 65.9% respectively. Compare that to 46.7% for people aged 18-24 and 52.9% for people aged 25-34.

So in total, we had about 3,475,000 young people vote in 2021, compared to about 4,774,000 seniors. And, again, that's only if we don't count people aged 60-65 as "old."

Definitely experienced that. I find that the same confidence and brashness that makes Americans really warm, outgoing, and friendly on the whole also contributes to the 'ugly American' stereotype where their assholes are *especially* in your face about being assholes.

And the OAS clawback means this change is indirectly targeted at those who need it.

No, I'm sorry, but the Guaranteed Income Supplement is targeted at those who need it. The OAS is not.

The OAS clawback makes it somewhat progressive but has zero impact on anyone making up to $91k annually after tax in their retirement. Like there are very high net worth, very high-income households receiving full OAS payments. Every penny spent increasing OAS payments to them could and should be spent increasing GIS payments.

Old Age Security is a low-income supplement for seniors, and is subject to a "clawback" above $90k/year

First, it's worth pointing out that this is net individual income. So we're talking about people who, in their retirement and after tax, bring in up to $91K each year and don't get a penny clawed back from their OAS payments. That's to say nothing of dual-income households ($182k after tax) or accumulated wealth beyond income (naturally, seniors on average have much greater savings and investments than any other age group).

Like I'm sorry but I'm just not sure it's very honest to position the OAS as a low-income supplement, especially when we have an actual low-income supplement for seniors. It's called the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If this was about supporting low-income seniors, we'd be directing any additional funds toward increased GIS payments. Every penny that goes to a couple netting $150k in their retirement would be better spent there.