He should be on fire, not "under fire".
wraekscadu
joined 4 months ago
A definite yes by people close to me. Not so much by strangers. I'm good at masking.
Thanks for the transparency :)
A moderator holds quite a lot of power. Which is why sadly, power hungry people tend to want to become moderators.
A way to ensure that power isn't being misused is by being extremely transparent. This is the 196 mod team being transparent. I like it.
Does it stir up some drama? Maybe. Is this outcome more preferable over the Tesseract case, where "moderation action" wasn't being made aware to the the user? 100%.
Ehhh naming stuff after individuals just sounds very icky to me
This is why consumer coops are so so important for stuff like this.
The insurance of a person I'm close to from their coop is around 9% cheaper than other non coop alternatives.
Consumer coops (irrespective of sector) always tend to have top notch customer service in my experience.
Proportional representation is a bad idea, and in every case where it's been examined on a provincial level when the voters take a long hard look they walk away from it
Won't present the case for PR, as I don't think I can make a better case than the ones already presented by other people. Don't have the energy for it.
As for public support, 68% support it nationally according to an EKOS poll conducted in 2025.
I know this isn't a provincial poll as you stated, but still. Also, if other important bills can pass without majority support of the electorate, why not PR? If we agree that the current FPTP system is fair, then why can't reform passed through the same system be considered "fair"?
Would be better for sure to look at the reasons why you want it
- I don't to be forced to vote strategically.
- I don't want to be totally unrepresented in parliament and my LA.
- I don't want a government that DOES NOT have majority support of the electorate passing laws as if it has majority support.
And you had a coalition between the liberals and NDP for 4 years, and that didn't help.
True, sadly. It is also true that the NDP wasn't that strong, and the Liberals weren't that weak.
A precondition for this is a weak liberals, where an annoying snap election ends up drawing votes to the CPC or the NDP from the Liberals. If it's the other way round, where NDP votes go to the libs, then electoral reform ain't happening.
there's been nothing to stop someone in the future from going back to first past the post
Not true. It is very very difficult for a single party to get a total majority in PR. No junior coalition partner would be stupid to roll back to FPTP.
Once PR happens, it would be very very difficult to get it rolled back.
BC has rejected PR three times now
The first time, the majority voted FOR it. The BC Liberals however, set an arbitrary threshold of 60%. Also, in both of these cases STV was specified instead of the simpler and more representative MMPR. The second time, it was STV again. The third time, there wasn't any specification from what I understand.
That being said, there is no moral obligation for PR to be passed through a referendum. PR empowers voters in ridings that sway heavily towards one side. Right now, these voters have absolutely no representation. This isn't "representative" democracy.
If a government can form and make policies without majority support of the electorate, it can also pass electoral reform. Why do we need a referendum for it? Do we have referendums for all controversial policies?
"But a following government can easily roll back PR".
Not really, no. Unless a really really massive wave comes in, PR almost always guarantees no single party majority. No small party would be stupid enough to accept the roll back of PR.
Unfortunately, the implementation of PR is full of misinformation, people not understanding why it is better, and pet desires rather than a desire to improve the status quo.
True. But my question is, do we truly need the people to "understand"? If we do, then we ought to have direct democratic practices for other important bills too (like budgets) like they do in Switzerland. Selective direct democracy for electoral reform, while abusing structural loopholes to pass bills without majority support is hypocritical, is it not. I'm directing this at the BC NDP btw, not you.
Hmmm, good example.
Although this is kinda different, is it not? From what I understand, the vote withholding was purely one sided.
Republicans: Majority were pro Israel. Minority were apathetic, and preferred that the US stay out of the "Israel-Palestine situation" entirely.
Democrats: Half were pro Israel, half were pro Palestine, cuz the IDF was genocidal.
Even within the Democrats, a huge chunk was fiercely pro Israel. A pro Palestinian stance meant that this section would either not vote/flip red.
BUT
The electoral reform thing is quite different from what I understand. No faction in the NDP, Liberals and Greens is absolutely anti electoral reform, right? Half is pro electoral reform while half is just apathetic. There will still be a big and powerful pro electoral reform faction in a "big tent" party, which all of them are cuz of fptp.
If the "we won't vote till electoral reform is promised to us" group is diverse in terms of political affiliation, then EVERY party has to make and keep this promise (assuming at least one large political party accepts the demands first).
Let's take the case of Alberta. The NDP and the UCP are the big parties. The electoral reform block is made of progressive conservatives and maybe separatists too on the UCP side, and Liberals and Greens on the NDP side. Let's say the NDP blinks first (as they have a greater numerical disadvantage due to the electoral reform block than the UCP) and accepts the demands. From the UCP's standpoint, only their own voters will have lower turnout now that the NDP has given in to their side of the block. This is bad. Internal pressure from PC and separatist politicians would force them to eventually accept the demands as well.
Do you have examples of this? Not debating you, just want to know if "vote protests" or whatever were held before and the effects they had/did not have.
Isn't it a voter block that DOES come out to vote usually, but isn't doing so this time, and the only thing that a given political party has to do is to promise and deliver reform to get them to come out?
A given political party would want to maximise turnout of its own members, yes? But if say, a subset of members says, "hey, we won't come out to vote unless you make this promise", that's holding the party by its balls, isn't it?
Usually, getting people out to vote takes a lot of effort. Canvassing, repeated adverts and so on. BUT, if a simple inclusion in the manifesto is going to increase turnout by even a percentage point, then well... that's not so insignificant for the party to just ignore.
view more: next ›
While modlogs leave a paper trail, they make investigation easier. However, few have the time necessary to routinely check the logs, right?
Removal of a mod and a mod leaving on their own are very different things. Removing a mod is a drastic action. There has to be declarative transparency regarding this instead of people randomly happening upon this piece of information sometime in the future.
Also, a removed mod could be bitter. If they hit first with accusations, then things get complicated.