06.16.2015 08:10 AM

We wonder if this plan will promise “open nominations”?

Kind of doubt it.

20 Comments

  1. Matt from Ottawa says:

    This is all well and good proposals I guess, but I see alot of this as “fluff”. At the end of the day, I could honestly care less about alot of these things as regardless of them, they wont change all that much how the govt conducts business.

    Just run the government, provide essential services, and provide a good economic climate that encourages investment Thats all that matters to most voters. The problem with JT is he keeps touting about doing politics differently, then doesnt ie) Eve Adams, Orleans nomination etc

    • P Brennan says:

      I agree Matt ..I want a job , a job for my kids , health care , decent roads, safe food and water…I dont want senate , new voting process, mandatory voting blah blah blah ..all noise …

      • doconnor says:

        A better voting process can make a big difference in getting a government doing what you want it to do. I means every vote will be important and it allows to you vote for want you want, rather then against what you don’t want.

  2. Matt says:

    The Liberals had no issues with the FPTP system when they were winning majorities with 42% of the vote.

    Funny they only want to change it when they’re third in the polls. Want to win? Put forward policies people want to vote for. Seems pretty simple.

    Mandatory voting? Yeah good luck with that.

    And why have the majority of his few policy announcements say details to follow later? Sweet Jebus son, you’ve had 2 YEARS to hammer out the details.

  3. Matt says:

    It’s becoming clearer Trudeau is just a puppet being used by his advisors to do their bidding.

    Mandatory voting is the brainchild of Trudeau’s advisor University of Ottawa academic Robert Asselin. He’s been pushing it for years.

    Now he has the empty suit Trudeau to push for it.

  4. Mark says:

    At this stage, any kind of reasonable policy proposals will help the Liberals.

  5. Matt says:

    Trudeau was asked at his announcement this morning if he would fill the 20 current senate vacancies if he wins in October

    He wouldn’t answer the question.

    Interesting.

  6. doconnor says:

    Mandatory voting would increase the number of low information voters, which would probably not have good effects. I wonder if that is the reason Australia is the second most right-wing westernized country.

  7. Bill says:

    When did this become blogging tories?

    • FFibs says:

      About a week ago when “The Ad” went up

    • Lance says:

      People aren’t kissing Trudeau’s ass, and all of a sudden it is the “Blogging Tories”? ROFL

      No reflection on Trudeau’s issues just……….blaming a Conservative aggregator for the Trudeau supporter comments drying up. Figure it out – that is a symptom of something else. Can’t figure out why? Well, that os another symptom, isn’t?

    • Kevin T. says:

      When panic became tangible.

  8. RogerX says:

    Let’s give Justin some benefit of the doubt. What I doubt is that Justin is making up all this stuff by himself because he’s just a political personality strutting on the political stage fully scripted.

    • Lance says:

      Then knowing just that, why should be given the benefit of ANY doubt? Hasn’t he been given enough “benefit of the doubt” already?

  9. JH says:

    Lots of online chatter as well about filling those empty Senate seats. Apparently JT refused to comment when asked directly if elected would he appoint Senators to fill them. Don’t think anyone coached him on that question.

  10. Kevin says:

    Trudeau continues to dig while in the hole.

  11. Bill MacLeod says:

    This PR system is all nonsense. Supposedly it gives “every vote a voice” but what it will really do is give the votes to tiny parties a disproportionately loud voice.

    Picture this outcome based on 2011 popular vote:
    CPC 122
    NDP 94
    LPC 58
    PQ 19
    GPC 12
    OTH 3
    You need 155 for a majority. Who will “coalesce” with the Conservatives? Anyone? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m guessing “definitely,” under the right circumstance.
    With the NDP? The Liberals. OK, sure. Fill yer boots. Still not enough. Throw in the Greens, OK, a slim majority. But at what cost? If Layton had really wanted to be PM in 2011, what would he have had to give up, and to whom?

    Usually, it’s the small parties that drive the coalition bus, since they have other options. What’s so democratic about that?

    Further, what is so democratic about a system in which an independent candidate cannot get elected?

    I like the FPTP system very much, thank you. It has elected PC, CPC, LPC, NDP, PQ UN, SC, Yukon and Sask Party governments federally and provincially in my lifetime, and I’ve seen all those parties and as well, BQ, Reform, COR, Wildrose and CDQ/ADQ form the official oppositions. That’s pretty wide open and democratic, is it not?

    Frankly, I believe any country that would allow any party to do away with the FPTP system, but will demand near unanimous consent to abolish the Senate, should have its constitution dramatically overhauled.

    This is just another waste of time that turns me off the current iteration of the LPC.

    Regards,

    Bill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*