@mpjgregoire There is a reasonable discussion about the direction of causality. The correlation behind quality of life and PR is still significant.
If the interest is truly seeing all sides of an issue, wouldn't a better approach be to have more diverse voices at the table? With FPTP, the majority can ride roughshod over any opposing views without consideration - discussion is moot to power. PR strongly leads toward more points of view being considered.
@mpjgregoire The PCs have been very clear about their plans: against the poor and working class, against inclusivity, against science, against the environment, exercisizing provincial power to spite enemies, and toward benefiting private interests over public while limiting public oversight. 60+% of Ontarians voted center-left or left (Liberal, NDP, or Green) - they did not want the PCs policies. FPTP failed to translate the people's will into policy. PR would.
“Last March, Tony Schmidt discovered something unsettling about the machine that helps him breathe at night. Without his knowledge, it was spying on him.
From his bedside, the device was tracking when he was using it and sending the information not just to his doctor, but to the maker of the machine, to the medical supply company that provided it and to his health insurer.”
@mpjgregoire I really don't understand this line of thought. PR changes the dynamics of interparty behavior. Rather than constant squabbling, they have to work together to get things done. Countries using PR have the highest standards of living and the most socially progressive laws (including carbon taxes!). A majority government with minority votes captured by private interests (like ON gov) can do tremendous damage unchecked for years. PR strongly limits this.
@cmart Looking to conduct cross-border business chat with a colleague via phone, and he uses Signal exclusively for close family - meaning he's asked for me to use something else. :)
CATALOG: Do you like being in the cold? ME: Sure C: No, like really cold? M: I mean, I guess C: Like frozen antifreeze cold? M: That sounds unplea- C: How about living in the woods? M: Like a cabin? C: Sleeping under a tree, no tent M: I think n- C: Would you wrestle a moose? M: wut C: Fistfight a yeti
Bad idea of the day: transpose Pretty Hate Machine into a major key, shift every word in the lyrics to the least semantically distant word with a more positive sentiment score, and call the result Pretty Great Machine
Pretty Funk Machine, where each original track on the NIN album is mashed with a classic funk cut, e.g. "Up for the Down In It Stroke" or "Head Like a Flashlight"
It seems like, federally and provincially, Canada has a history of making good-sounding policy decisions that end up being comically dumb in practice. Examples include Ontario's early solar subsidy (and subsequent refinancing), federal mortgage guarantees for low down payment mortgages, etc.
Is this because of leadership swings due to FPTP? Ideological alignment of professional bureaucracy? Other causes? I don't get it and really want to understand. All insight is appreciated!