Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Discuss Presidential or Prime Minister elections for all countries here.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.

I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.

The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/
Richard Bell
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by Richard Bell »

I'm inclined at this point to reject it.

I think Dalton McGinty is a lying sack of sh!t anyway, so I have an aversion to anything touted by his regime.

Our system isn't perfect, but it works pretty well. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Anyway, I'm voting NDP, because they are the only party that voted against the huge pay increase the MPPs voted for themselves. Since I'm voting for an NDP MPP, and voting for the party on general principles, it doesn't interest me that I could vote for a party and an MPP.

It looks to me that this idea could lead to an Italian style parliament, where chaos and ineffectuality reign supreme.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

It depends on whether you want the electorate to be able to dent the system when they're unhappy.

First Past The Post amplifies voter opinion and generally avoids coalitions. This is a Good Thing, since one party running matters gives a coherent focused agenda which hasn't offended so many people as to be unacceptable.

Party Lists utterly insulate the politicians from rejection and rejecting individual politicians is the best entertainment going. It satisfies the electorate and it purges powerful magnates from their posts. Long may it continue. You'll not have heard of Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, David Mellor, Michael Portillo, William Waldegrave or Chris Patten but their downfalls heartened a generation.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

koan;692197 wrote: On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.

I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.

The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/


Sounds similar to the system introduced in Scotland. Don't know about canada but here the first things parties do when they get elected is gerrymander the electoral boundaries to make sure they get elected again. First past the post means you often end up with parties in control that have a low percentage of the overall vote but have managed to win the most seats by rearranging the wards, effectively disenfranchising most of the voters.

First past the post means you end up with situation like in the Uk where over 2/3rds of the voters didn't vote labour but we have a labour govt. Same with Maggie Thatcher, At no time did the majority of voters support her yet we got stuck with her. next to Tony Blair she must be one of the most hated prime ministers we have ever had.

In scotland for fifty years labour have ruled the roost now they no longer do so and are losing their grip on local councils as well, thanks to the list system. poor dears don't know what has hit them. Without it we would still have labour despite the massive opposition to them.

Main parties tend not to like PR because it means they can't rule the roost any more and actually have to listen to people.

posted by spot

It depends on whether you want the electorate to be able to dent the system when they're unhappy.




Oh yeah like TB got dented at the last election.

posted by spot

First Past The Post amplifies voter opinion and generally avoids coalitions. This is a Good Thing, since one party running matters gives a coherent focused agenda which hasn't offended so many people as to be unacceptable.


This is a bad thing, when you amplify something it can also be distorted as happens in our system. The number of votes cast for a party in general elections under FPTP is not accurately reflected in the number of seats won. Under PR the number of seats more accurately reflects the number of votes cast for each party.

posted by spot

Party Lists utterly insulate the politicians from rejection and rejecting individual politicians is the best entertainment going. It satisfies the electorate and it purges powerful magnates from their posts. Long may it continue. You'll not have heard of Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, David Mellor, Michael Portillo, William Waldegrave or Chris Patten but their downfalls heartened a generation.


They also scare the **** out of them as has happened up here. For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting.

posted by Richard Bell

It looks to me that this idea could lead to an Italian style parliament, where chaos and ineffectuality reign supreme.


That's not the system that's due to the italians. Germany uses the same system, like italy PR was imposed after ww2 because PR prevents one party gaining total power without having support from at least a majority of the populace. (as has happened here with New Labour ) The argument that it gives small parties undue influence is a spurious one. No offence but you have to gave a very strange way of looking at things if you believe an electoral system that gives the majority of seats and therefore political power to a party that 2/3rds of the voters reject is a fair one.

Both labour and the Tories are on record as saying they oppose PR. Scots Tories on the other hand think it's wonderful as without it, despite getting 18% of the vote they would have no seats at all.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

It's very difficult to decide what it will all mean in real results.

One of the most unnerving aspects is that no one is really talking about it. My family keeps fairly well informed and none of us can talk intelligently about this particular subject... and the vote is in a month!

That's some good info here though. At least a starting point to research from.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

My father's opinion includes that most of the politicians are against it so there has to be something good about the new system idea :D

One question I'm still unsure of... with PR, would the local dude still be the local representative if his party didn't win enough seats for him/her to go to legislature?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

Proportional Representation - Party List system

is what Ontario is voting on.

I think the better article was on the main page

Proportional Representation





After reading those articles and the one on First Past The Post, I've made my decision. The scary part is that I wouldn't have voted for PR after reading the Ontario government's official info site about it. It was sketchy as to what exactly they meant. Now that I have more information it's very exciting. What gmc said rings incredibly true for me "For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting." :-6
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

koan;692380 wrote: Proportional Representation - Party List system

is what Ontario is voting on.

I think the better article was on the main page

Proportional Representation





After reading those articles and the one on First Past The Post, I've made my decision. The scary part is that I wouldn't have voted for PR after reading the Ontario government's official info site about it. It was sketchy as to what exactly they meant. Now that I have more information it's very exciting. What gmc said rings incredibly true for me "For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting." :-6


You can see why the established parties don't like it can't you?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

gmc;692516 wrote: You can see why the established parties don't like it can't you?


Yes. But I can also see what is being done about it.

60% of the vote is needed to change the electoral system and there has been almost no info about it. Much of what has been said focuses on the safety of sticking with the system we know. :-5
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by Nomad »

koan;692197 wrote: On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.



I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.



The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/




Really meaty stuff here koan.
I AM AWESOME MAN
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

Nomad;697790 wrote: Really meaty stuff here koan.


Ever thought what a difference it would make in the US?

http://accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Effectively much of your electorate is effectively disenfranchised under your present system. We have he same problem you get GW we got TB-except theoretically TB shopuldn't have as much power as a president.
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

I've allready voted no in the advance poll. I would like to see reform but not this as it means 29 additional seats going to unelected MPPs, we have enough unelected senators at the trough.

I like Australia's system which works because voting is mandatory.
senior's politics and discussion
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

freetobeme;705290 wrote: I've allready voted no in the advance poll. I would like to see reform but not this as it means 29 additional seats going to unelected MPPs, we have enough unelected senators at the trough.

I like Australia's system which works because voting is mandatory.


You're missing the point. It's not just the compulsion it's the fact that the system is proportional as well so each vote does count unlike the US canada and the UK. PR terrifies politicians in the main parties because they wouldn't get elected with such big majorities and they know it.



Inclusive rules elect a broad variety of reps and thus invite a wide range of candidates and issues, attracting a great turnout of voters -- Australians see 90% vote compared with the USA's 50%. Turnout is high also because 83% of the voters help pick the winners.

(The share of votes needed to win a Senate seat in Australia is 16.6% for each of five seats; 5 × 16.6% = 83%. The quota for five majority winners is just 50% of each district and thus 50% overall. So at least half of U.S. votes are wasted on winner surpluses or on losers; they do not affect the results. In Australia all but 16% of the votes are effective.)

freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

IMO this will result in backroom deals, creating virtually permanent minority or coalition governments, and will give and will open the door for more power for to smaller groups or political and religious zealots.

Australia's electoral system works because they require all people to vote by law, or they are fined and New Zealand is looking at having another referendum to get rid of theirs.
senior's politics and discussion
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

posted by freetobeme

IMO this will result in backroom deals, creating virtually permanent minority or coalition governments, and will give and will open the door for more power for to smaller groups or political and religious zealots.


What you mean as opposed to having governments on power detested by the majority of the voters that can run roughshod over everyione? Minority rule or coalition so they would have to listen to other points of view and actually take them in to account and you seriously think that is a bad thing?



In the UK we would not have had Maggie for so long or Tony Blair. Both in the top two of most destructive prime ministers we have ever had.

Australia's electoral system works because they require all people to vote by law, or they are fined and New Zealand is looking at having another referendum to get rid of theirs.


That's not coming from the people themselves but rather those who lost their ability to take control.

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech6662.html

The future of MMP

Parliament conducted a review of MMP in 2002 which resulted in virtually no change to the system. While the public are often critical of MMP it is not the burning issue it was during the first coalition government. Kiwis’ inherent sense of fairness means that more of them would rather live with coalition Governments than accept parties winning a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes. A recent survey found a small majority (52%) agree that MMP had been “a good thing for New Zealand”; 37% felt otherwise. More than two thirds thought that MMP would remain New Zealand’s electoral system for the foreseeable future.
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

Well, I'm not British, but I kinda liked Maggie and Blair....:wah:

However, IMO, this type of electoral system is ripe for opening the doors to extremists and religious zealots. Most people respect separation of church and state but there are many who do not, and would work towards changing this. This type of system lends itself to abuse, and could give unmerited political power to smaller, vocal organized minority self interest groups, those who are out to proselytize the world. I would rather have Australia's system and a mandated vote.
senior's politics and discussion
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

freetobeme;705686 wrote: Well, I'm not British, but I kinda liked Maggie and Blair....:wah:

However, IMO, this type of electoral system is ripe for opening the doors to extremists and religious zealots. Most people respect separation of church and state but there are many who do not, and would work towards changing this. This type of system lends itself to abuse, and could give unmerited political power to smaller, vocal organized minority self interest groups, those who are out to proselytize the world. I would rather have Australia's system and a mandated vote.


If I understand you correctly, this is what my mother said as well for her reason to vote "no". But she was a little more honestly blunt in the way she worded it. She didn't want minority opinions to get a voice. Afraid that radical Muslims would elect members that actually get a seat or other "undesirable" political groups. Basically, she said she was against democracy. She only wants "normal people" votes to count.
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

koan;705743 wrote: If I understand you correctly, this is what my mother said as well for her reason to vote "no". But she was a little more honestly blunt in the way she worded it. She didn't want minority opinions to get a voice. Afraid that radical Muslims would elect members that actually get a seat or other "undesirable" political groups. Basically, she said she was against democracy. She only wants "normal people" votes to count.


Where did I say that?

I would consider radical zealots who wish to introduce religion and or religious laws into government as 'undesirable'. All people are entitled to a voice but this proposal will empower and enable radical self interest groups when we should be working to ensure that personal religious beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others.

The answer to a better government is not to give a wider voice to radicals, but to open up gov't by empowering parliamentary committees, removing the privilege of patronage from PMs and Premiers, and making it easier to introduce, debate and pass private members bills. This will lead to more accountability, the ability to consider a wider variety of issues, and decreasing the role of government leaders and their unelected staffs.
senior's politics and discussion
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

you didn't say it.

as I mentioned, those were the words that my mother used. I do think you are saying the same thing though. Hippies were radicals. Some feminists are radicals. Whether we like them or not, if they are citizens, they have a vote and if we don't want it to count we are against democracy.
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

Of course all citizens have a right to vote, even hippies LOL but being against MMP doesn't mean one thinks they shouldn't have that right, so please don't project what you want to see.
senior's politics and discussion
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

freetobeme;705686 wrote: Well, I'm not British, but I kinda liked Maggie and Blair....:wah:

However, IMO, this type of electoral system is ripe for opening the doors to extremists and religious zealots. Most people respect separation of church and state but there are many who do not, and would work towards changing this. This type of system lends itself to abuse, and could give unmerited political power to smaller, vocal organized minority self interest groups, those who are out to proselytize the world. I would rather have Australia's system and a mandated vote.


I would rather have Australia's system and a mandated vote.


So you do favour proportional representation. Australia uses it for the senate.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vot ... Senate.htm

Senators are elected by a preferential voting system, known as proportional representation.




However, IMO, this type of electoral system is ripe for opening the doors to extremists and religious zealots.

That's the favourite objection put forward that doesn't hold water to anyone that thinks about it for more than a minute or two. Winner takes all effectively disenfranchises the majority of voters merely letting the largest minority get power. So you might have enclaves where a religious party can get the seat because of the make up of the population makes them the largest minority but throughout the country it's rather unlikely. Indeed PR would actually help stop an extremist getting power. If anything it makes it worthwhile voting as at least the vote won't be wasted because you don't support the biggest majority.

Don't know much about Canadian politics or American come to that but Maggie and Tony have been two of the most hated prime ministers in recent times (IMO) with a minority of support in the country and our electoral system is such we couldn't get rid of them without a massive swing in support against them. Both of them gerrymandered electoral boundaries to keep power. TB latterly had less than 30% of the vote. You really have to be diehard tony supporter to convince yourself that he actually has a mandate to run the country. Except diehard labour supporters are leaving in droves. Labour membership is half what it was in 1997. It has been suggested that Tony coming up to scotland to help campaign at the Scottish election was the last straw that swung the vote to the SNP.

Winner takes all effectively disenfranchises the majority of voters merely letting the largest minority get power.
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by freetobeme »

I am in favour of electoral reform, but not this particular one.

Boundaries have been gerrymandered here by the Liberals, and probably by the conservatives too at one time; all parties tend to look out for their side, it's a political bent. Mind you, the changing of boundaries is done as required by law and changed as the population changes which is necessary.

We have an unelected, patronage appointed Senate, (it has to go or be an elected Senate) the proposed new system is not the same as Australia. Australia has a mandated vote, and uses preferential ballots in two different ways: instant-runoff voting and the single transferable vote system. IMHO a preferable system.

There's nothing wrong with first past the post either if there is a mandated vote, Australia has it right. That along with an equal elected Senate (or prop. rep.)would be great IMO.

Proportional representation means disproportional power, as all it will do is shift it to smaller parties that will suddenly hold the balance of control in the legislature. This explains why MMP is enthusiastically supported by smaller and more radical parties.

I've allready voted no, and according to a SES poll it won't pass. I know that too many Ontario voters didn't (advance polling) or don't know there is even a referendum, never mind being an informed voter.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Ontariov ... 4-sun.html
senior's politics and discussion
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by koan »

freetobeme;705954 wrote: Of course all citizens have a right to vote, even hippies LOL but being against MMP doesn't mean one thinks they shouldn't have that right, so please don't project what you want to see.


you said "...but this proposal will empower and enable radical self interest groups when we should be working to ensure that personal religious beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others."

as logical as that may seem, you are supporting cutting voices in order to cut a specific few from being heard. It's not in my projection it's in your not wanting to see the bigger consequences of your reasoning.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by gmc »

posted by freetobeme

Proportional representation means disproportional power, as all it will do is shift it to smaller parties that will suddenly hold the balance of control in the legislature. This explains why MMP is enthusiastically supported by smaller and more radical parties.


IMO that is one of the most ridiculous arguments put forward against proportional representation. Let's say for arguements sake you have a religious party that gets popular support. As it stands in the UK (I don't know enough about Canada to use any figures from there, although a religious party in the UK is highly unlikely as it would very rapidly become sectarian and split the christian vote) they need less than a third of the vote to get elected to power. With PR it couldn't happen because the other 2'3rds would be enough to stop them having their way.

Extremists of any kind only get support when other paths of political protest are blocked. that's why it's Saudi Arabia that is the home of al queda, why the ayatollah ended up getting power in Iran because extremes seemed useful because people were left with no alternatives.

Just remember it used to b extreme to be radical to advocate one man one vote even for those who did not own property. Giving the vote to women was even more so-used to be the suffragettes were viewed as dangerous terrorists -a threat to the very fabric of society. The green movement are also viewed as radical yet in countries with PR they are a seen as a viable political alternative that get considerable supporty in the likes of Germany.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

spot;692319 wrote: You'll not have heard of Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, David Mellor, Michael Portillo, William Waldegrave or Chris Patten but their downfalls heartened a generation.


I note that Rifkind has crashed and burned a second time, on this occasion as a result of what can surely be described as sleaze. Offering political influence to what he believed was a Chinese company, on the spurious grounds that "nobody pays me a salary"? What on earth does he think his £67,000 a year MP's pay is. Expenses, presumably. Instead of feeling anger, I suggest he explores the more appropriate topic of shame.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31603202
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by FourPart »

I watched the documentary on 4oD earlier on & although Rifkind seemed to come across as the typical sleazy toe rag we have come to expect of the Tories, it has to be said that Straw did make the statements that he points out in his defence that any services he were to provide would not be made until after he stepped down as an M.P. & that any info would not be anything more than would already be available to anyone in the Public Domain. Furthermore, his additional claims that all his previous dealings have all been declared & within the rules determined by the Code of Conduct can all be verified, so although perhaps distateful, he has done nothing illegal. Rifkind, on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish. "Self Employed"? "Doesn't Receive A Salary"? Yeah, right!!

Some months ago I signed a petition for the Right of Recall (where the electorate has the right to sack their MPs before the completion of their term), but even if that were in effect, what would be the use? By the time all the paperwork went through it would be Election time. However, I do believe some sort of enquiry be made as to Criminal Proceedings being made, although I'm not sure there could be a conviction as no law was actually broken, as the company in question never really existed so no money or services were actually provided, legitimately or otherwise. Only the clear intent was proven. The most that could be proved would probably be Conspiracy to Defraud - or might it count as Espionage?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

If Jack Straw had put off discussing his future employment until after he had ended his mandate as an MP I'd have no problem with him.

Offering meaningful access to in-service diplomats has little to do with providing information available to anyone in the Public Domain. The first is profiting from his public position, the second is acting as an informed researcher. The second is fine by me, the first is definitive shameful sleaze which no Labour ex-Minister should be touching with a bargepole.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by FourPart »

Distasteful? Yes. Immoral? Perhaps - that would depend on personal opinion. Illegal? Therein lies the question. The intent to accept the offer is beyond doubt, but intent is not, in itself, a crime when even the end result never really existed. The point that is of most concern is that what they were planning to do is not actually illegal, so long as it remains declared & within the official guidelines, which act in their favour. The real question that must be asked is how such scandalous actions can remain legitimate, especially when this whole programme was merely based an a practically identical scenario set up 5 years ago, and still nothing has been done. Personally I imagine that once again it will be a major rallying cry for all parties to campaign to, and then it will be conveniently forgotten & brushed under the carpet once the next Government get in. No doubt by that time the electorate will be too inflamed by all the other broken election campaign pledges closer to home to remember such things.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

FourPart;1474780 wrote: Illegal? Therein lies the question.It may be a question you're raising, but I dislike it being tagged on to a response to my post. Nothing I have ever said implied illegality on the part of either Jack Straw or Sir Malcolm.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by FourPart »

spot;1474792 wrote: It may be a question you're raising, but I dislike it being tagged on to a response to my post. Nothing I have ever said implied illegality on the part of either Jack Straw or Sir Malcolm.
I didn't say you did. Nor did I say that you claimed it as being distatsteful or immoral. Or am I to understand you don't find it distasteful or immoral either?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

FourPart;1474973 wrote: I didn't say you did. Nor did I say that you claimed it as being distatsteful or immoral. Or am I to understand you don't find it distasteful or immoral either?


The words I used were "shameful sleaze". I would much prefer to speak in my own voice with my own vocabulary rather than being fed newsbite expressions, thank you.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1474792 wrote: It may be a question you're raising, but I dislike it being tagged on to a response to my post. Nothing I have ever said implied illegality on the part of either Jack Straw or Sir Malcolm.


Nevertheless it is a ligitimate question to be aired when discussing the subject.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38649
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1474976 wrote: Nevertheless it is a ligitimate question to be aired when discussing the subject.


The poster's wording implied that I had said it was illegal, I was setting the record straight.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Ontario Referendum On Voting System

Post by FourPart »

spot;1474979 wrote: The poster's wording implied that I had said it was illegal, I was setting the record straight.
I was not implying that anyone had said it. It was just part of the general discussion. Had my intention been to imply you had said it I would have quoted you.

Return to “Presidential Elections Campaigns”