You could talk to your neighbours, go to a town hall, call your MP.
If you're represented by a party that's not in a ruling coalition, sure that party will tell you they care about you, but they're powerless to do anything to help you. Y
You're complaining about partisan politics but you also want to make the system even more partisan?
What war crimes did he commit?
So you're not bothered by the idea of tesseract, only upset by who was being targeted?
Coalitions is how government is supposed to be run.
Disagree. Governments are supposed to be run by the representatives of the people. Parties are an ugly thing that are unfortunately unavoidable and we have to live with. Given that all political parties suck, the goal should be increasing the representation of people and decreasing the power of parties. PR is an attempt to do the opposite.
During this Liberal tenure, how many Conservative party bills have been passed? Why aren’t our representatives working together to help their constituents?
It's up to Pierre Pollievre to work with the government, not the other way around. But PP can't even work with people in his own party. It would've been a smart move for him to offer to form a Goverment of National Unity just after the last election (it worked out well for Clement Attlee), but PP isn't all that smart.
A lot of the things the Liberals passed in the past year have been thing the CPC have wanted. PP will never admit that and if he does he'll complain about it taking too long or not being enough or whatever. He tried being "nice" but that didn't even last a week. At his core he's a debate club kid, he always just takes the opposite side and argues. There's a lot of people in the Conservative base that hate Liberals so they support him, but he's not really a leader. He was Stephen Harper's attack dog and is unable to grow out of that role.
Any MP can put forward a private members bill. Of course if it's a good idea the governing party will probably co-opt it into one of their bills so they can take credit for it. The Liberals have been doing that with NDP proposals for a long long time. But if the goal is to get good legislation, does it matter who takes credit for it? What matters is what passes, the rest is just politics.
Now I’ll preface by saying there’s nothing wrong with floor crossing. However why did MPs have to floor cross to support the government? That doesn’t make sense in our political system.
Each party has a whip and they pressure people to vote with the party on every bill. They can declare a free vote and everyone can vote their conscience, but that doesn't happen often. If an MP regularly votes against party lines, they might be kicked out of the party. Crossing the floor has the benefit that you're not going to be hounded by the party whip or PP constantly.
But probably a bigger factor (at least in the most recent floor crossings) is the committees. If there's a majority government, the committees are all lead by the governing party. It's not this way in a minority government and so an opposition party could hold up legislation at the committee level if they want. And this was happening. Mark Carney is a "Red Tory", that is a conservative but in the Liberal Party, but more of a Progressive Conservative, not a Reform Conservative. A lot of the things he's doing is what a lot of the Conservative MPs actually want. So imagine seeing the thing you want passed being held up in committee under the orders of your party leadership and knowing that if you cross the floor you'd be able to unblock it.
In the last year we've seen blockages occur because of party leadership (which parties can do under any system) but those blockages were cleared because we're under a community representation system where the parties don't own the seats. The people that work with the party leadership know them better that the voters and it's good to have those people have the option to leave a bad leader. These are important features of our system that a PR system doesn't have.
Lemmy is no different. Stochastic terrorism is commonplace in this site. Sometimes I think I'm the only one that ever calls it out.
Well yeah, Greedo didn't shoot. Because Han Solo shot first. I don't think it needs to be stated that Han Solo wouldn't miss at a range that close.
What is it with people on this site always wanting to make lists of people that upset them?
There have been periods of human history within some groups that did have no needs scarcity. Shelter, food, water, all there. Replenishing faster than they could consume it.
Which periods are these?
I'd say right now we have the necessary resources to provide for everyone's needs in the world. Providing for basic needs isn't a scarcity issue, it's a resource allocation issue. We aren't prioritizing providing for everyone's needs before providing for people's wants.
I'm lucky enough to live in a developed country, I have shelter, a fridge full of food, I turn a tap and I have potable water. It's all there for me. My needs are taken care of. I still think would be awesome if I owned a private island in a nice climate, with a big house on it and a pier with my own yacht I could sail around when I feel like it. But there's the problem, how do we determine who gets what they want? If I got the private island, yacht, etc. while you only had your basic needs met, would you consider that to be an equitable society?
Why does Picard get a vineyard in France while someone else has to be satisfied by whatever the replicator provides them?
TNG makes it clear that Picard values original artifacts. There's a scene where he assumes an artifact someone is giving him is replicated but then is told it's the original. He basically pisses his pants over it being a much too valuable of a gift. So no, in Star Trek people do place greater value on non-fungible items. You don't even think of this scene as unusual because of course people think that way.
Starfleet needed more starships to defend themselves from the Dominion. Do you consider that a need or a want? They don't have an infinite number of starships. Apparently building starships involved some kind of scarce resources.
Because they didn't have enough starships, a lot of people died. If we consider not being vaporized by a phaser to be a need, the Federation was not able to provide everyone's needs because of a scarcity of resources limited the number of starships they could produce.
Like I say, Star Trek is incredibly inconsistent about this. If an episode requires scarcity of resources so Nog can trade different things to different people in a fun episode, then those resources are scarce. If they need to use gold pressed latinum, they use currency. If someone asks "how does your economy work?" then suddenly "they don't use money, they don't need it because they have everything they want." And this is fine, if someone 300 years ago were to write some fiction about our time, it would probably be about people more Scrooge McDuck (who had a giant vault of shiny coins) rather than Elon Musk (who has no need for that because that's not how the economy works). Star Trek can't have a realistic economy, and it doesn't need it. We're just meant to assume it's broadly equitable, everything is fuzzy beyond that.
This is the case where if I were to replicate it, what would be the difference?
You can't replicate an infinite amount of land in France. You can't replicate an infinite number of private islands. People will value these things and they will be scarce. Why would Picard live on a vineyard in France instead of in a holodeck version of a vineyard if there was no value to the real thing?
Israel uses proportional representation. To maintain power Netanyahu made deals with some far-right crazies.
The EU is proportional representation. This allowed Nigel Farage to make a name for himself, and ultimately the UK left the EU.
PR systems give all of the power to political parties. They have negotiate backroom deals so they can form a coalition and govern. Minority interests are often ignored. If some extremists want to harm minorities, and a party needs those extremists to form a coalition, the minority groups will be harmed. This is not a hypothetical, this has happened in Israel. Nothing anyone can do about it but hope in the next election Israelis vote for parties in the correct proportions to make a coalition like this not possible.
Yeah, PR looks better on spreadsheet. And maybe some people spread across the country with specific interests might get an MP in Parliament. But if that MP doesn't get into the ruling coalition, their interests will be ignored.
Calling it a "first past the post" system is just putting the thumb on the scale to slant the debate by making the system sound arbitrary. Let's instead call it what it is, a community representation system. In a community representation system, community leaders control the seats, not the parties. In the case where there's a minority group spread across the country, they will be well represented. Not by a single MP that gets ignored by the ruling coalition. But by multiple MPs in representing ridings. A party may ignore the interests of a million people. But an MP doesn't want to ignore a thousand people in their riding. If their party refuses to address the concerns of those thousand, they might cross the floor. If they don't, they might lose votes to someone who will represent that minority group in their riding.
Community representation is bottom up. People in a community choose someone to represent them in Parliament. The parties need to keep those community leaders happy or they lose seats. And parties hate losing seats. The Liberal party of Canada has really worked on attracting community leaders into their party. This isn't solely altruism, they do this because it gains them seats. So in a community representation system the most cynical strategy focused operatives are made to talk to community leaders and make compromises with them.
A PR system is top down. You have the party leadership, the MPs are just trained seals because they can't cross the floor. They have to fall in line with the party leadership or you lose your job. MPs are basically pointless in a PR system, you'd save money by just having the party leaders declare what legislation they want, their vote is worth X votes (with X being the percentage of the vote their party got) and the legislation passes. We would find out what compromises they made with the other parties to form a coalition immediately and wouldn't have to pay a bunch of MPs to vote the way their party requires them to vote. The only reason to have MPs in a PR system would be to create the appearance that communities are being represented, when really it's just some party leaders making decisions in backrooms with zero oversight by community leaders.
A PR system only looks good on a spreadsheet. It's actually terrible when power dynamics are considered. And we should primarily be thinking of power dynamics when discussing political systems. I don't think numbers on a spreadsheet lining up don't matter all that much when minorities are having their houses bulldozed by a country governed by coalition formed in a backroom.
Post-scarcity isn't actually possible. Not even in Star Trek this is true. Picard's family owns a vineyard in France filled with artifacts and antiques. Not everything is fungible. People will desire these non-fungible things. Not everyone that desires these things will be able to have them, because they aren't fungible. You can't have a billion people all owning vineyards in France. Some people won't get everything they want. There will always be scarcity.
Star Trek was made in the 1960's at the height of the cold war. They didn't want the show to be about how capitalism was superior to communism, or vice versa. So they side stepped the issue by saying in the future there's no scarcity, no money, and they live under some ideal future economic model. The show writers don't know what that ideal economic model is, so it's deliberately vague and inconsistent. And that's fine because the show isn't about economics.
It was wise of the writers of Star Trek to avoid trying to make predictions of that nature. 300 years ago, Wealth of Nations wasn't yet written, the field of economics didn't really exist. They believed shiny rocks had intrinsic value. They had some vibes about things like currency devaluation and inflation, but economics was still mostly about acquiring shiney rocks 300 years in the past. So what will economics be like 300 years in the future? None of us know, and certainly writers of a TV show don't know.
The writers of a TV show saying there will be no scarcity in the future just means they didn't want to discuss economics. It's not any kind of prediction about the future. There will always be scarcity.
In the past, antisemites claimed that Judaism involved sacrificing children. You don't really think all that differently from those people do you?