News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Thorns_Embrace said:
It is funny you bring up the concept of a non-partisan panel. I can say I actually agree somewhat with the American perspective on this. Everybody is biased from a certain angle. And things likes maps are at least partially subjective? Is it best to "keep neighborhoods together" or should they be split if it means a more fair result, either from a balance in population or because it would allow for another neighborhood to be kept together? Canada has some questionable riding boundaries (I believe Saskatoon under the previous riding map was divided into 4 allowing conservatives to win all areas). Arguably the Toronto council ward boundaries had serious fairness issues despite being recommended as well.


That is not to say I believe the American system is good. the obvious gerrymandering done in some states is ridiculous. At least the so called non-partisan panels have ti at least maintain the image of being fair, so I think they would at least be closer to fair, even if I don't believe anyone is 100% non-biased,
Personally I think we should move away from district type representation to pure proportional systems. I never understood why some people think it is fair that some people have no voice just because they live in certain areas, and that is fundamentally true whether this is due to partisan gerrymandering or just due to natural demographics of certain areas. If you are a conservative in downtown Toronto you might as well stay home. The same can be said for an NDP voter in Simcoe for example. And I really don't like the population discrepancy, which literally makes some people's votes worth more than others. And these population discrepancies were always recommended by supposedly non-partisan committees, despite being completely unfair.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't commend our system as perfect. I agree, in general, with a move towards proportionality, though I tend to favour the MMP model.

But I would say I do believe, overall, that our riding review panels are non-partisan as is the bulk of our judiciary.

That is not to say without bias of some sort.

Rather its to suggest that panel appointees and those to the bench typically understand their mandate to be and to appear to be impartial and open to judging matters objectively.

The Judicial Council tends to take a very dim view of judges attracting controversy or having the appearance of bias.

Of course, it still happens.

Of course we can do better.

But in saying as much the American perspective is one that dismisses the possibility.

There is a preconceived notion that consensus is neither possible nor desirable.

That makes their situation so much more fraught than it need be.
 
kEiThZ said:
Something to keep in mind on riding boundaries. Till the VRA got tossed, there was a specific interest and legal obligation to draw boundaries to keep minority communities together.

I think it's easy for many of us to forget their history with slavery and racism. The last American slave died in the 1970s. The last undisputed Civil War veteran died in the 1950s. Their descendants lived through Jim Crow and segregation. The Civil Rights Era was the 60s. I think when you look at it through this lens the US has come a long way.

But all that needs to be kept in mind. We're talking about a country that is still healing from a lot of internal conflict.
Click to expand...

To hear from some in the US, "healing" would be a sign of weakness or concession. Some advocate that another civil war is the only way to 'cleanse' the nation - apparently quoting one of the Founding Fathers who are viewed as sitting on the right hand of God by many. The general view of our young Constitution is that it is a living document, which is position of the Supreme Court. The prevailing view in the US is that their Constitution is fixed and not subject to judicial interpretation, and use the Founding Papers as a basis for its original interpretation.

In my view the level of rabid partisanship in the US stands in the way of any form of significant compromise. Their system would benefit from a viable third party.
 
lenaitch said:
To hear from some in the US, "healing" would be a sign of weakness or concession. Some advocate that another civil war is the only way to 'cleanse' the nation - apparently quoting one of the Founding Fathers who are viewed as sitting on the right hand of God by many.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it serves anybody well to analyze a country’s politics based on its most extreme voices. Despite what you see on CNN, the vast, vast majority of Americans are just normal people trying to get through life. Keep that in mind.

lenaitch said:
The general view of our young Constitution is that it is a living document, which is position of the Supreme Court. The prevailing view in the US is that their Constitution is fixed and not subject to judicial interpretation, and use the Founding Papers as a basis for its original interpretation.
Click to expand...

For all that talk about how immutable their constitution is, they’ve had over 27 amendments. The last one was in 1992.

lenaitch said:
In my view the level of rabid partisanship in the US stands in the way of any form of significant compromise. Their system would benefit from a viable third party.
Click to expand...

A first past the post system inevitably leads to a two-party system on a long enough timeline. There are lots of third parties in the US. And you see independent runs often enough. It’s just that most of the time they end up as spoilers. Independents actually do well enough in their system.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
I don’t think it serves anybody well to analyze a country’s politics based on its most extreme voices. Despite what you see on CNN, the vast, vast majority of Americans are just normal people trying to get through life. Keep that in mind.

For all that talk about how immutable their constitution is, they’ve had over 27 amendments. The last one was in 1992.

A first past the post system inevitably leads to a two-party system on a long enough timeline. There are lots of third parties in the US. And you see indecent runs often enough. It’s just that most of the time they end up as spoilers. Independents actually do well enough in their system.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are correct that the 'noisy voices' get more of my attention. I actually don't follow US news sources. Part of my observations are from traveling in the States, admittedly not as extensively as you, and perhaps it is affected by my experience that many Americans wear their politics on their sleeves and are quite willing to share their views with just about anyone whether you want to hear it or not.

I am aware of the amendments; I was more thinking of the Bill of Rights part - amendments 1 -10. I didn't take the view that it was immutable but, rather, the widely and judicially held view that it should be subject to its original intent and interpretation. Perhaps if it had been written 100 years earlier it would have empowered the right to keep and bear swords; at least then their problem would be a shorter-ranged one.

I am aware of the success of the handful of independents but I am not aware of any actual third political party having any success, at least at the federal level.
 
From link.
DrmHOygX4AAMmKw.jpg
 
Trump was scared of some rain. I saw one of my conservative US friends on Facebook share a picture of Trudeau speaking last year without the umbrella.
 
kEiThZ said:
For all that talk about how immutable their constitution is, they’ve had over 27 amendments. The last one was in 1992.
Click to expand...

Worth saying though, its not only been 26 years since the last amendment..........but they have never managed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment


A first past the post system inevitably leads to a two-party system on a long enough timeline. There are lots of third parties in the US. And you see indecent runs often enough. It’s just that most of the time they end up as spoilers. Independents actually do well enough in their system.
Click to expand...

The US system is profoundly rigged against third parties.

First you have the system of voters registering as Democrat or Republican.

Then you have the option in most states of straight-ticket balloting (Just check the Republican box at the top and that chooses every subsequent choice for you)

You also have the requirements for getting your (party) name on a ballot which can be quite onerous for a third party.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top