Picture says it all

Alberta is way ahead of BC in a "certain" way.
Alberta used to have publicly owned utilities and Telephone companies. Everthing out that way isn`t publicly owned anymore- so this legislation obviously suits the multinational/privately owned companies that now own/control everything and likely donate money to the right wing government there, as they do here in BC. Note the company name in the left side of the photo- Ledcor. One company that is slowly taking control of the construction/ telecommunication sector- with connections to CLAC- the "union". And yes- wanna bet they amply donate money to the PC`s in Alberta. What a sick country we live in.

God and The Bar...

The bar for what constitutes a "revolutionary" in this country is pretty low. Example, Mr. Wilson here, where it is even lower in Alberta.

I mean, my God, the NDP is what passes for "left". :-)

The processes underway of corporate monopolization and the building of the Corporate State within capitalism are alive and well.

Atco and other AB companies thriving in BC

Atco is a player in BC's privatization of its electrical generation as are other Alberta companies.

Everything in the above article is a carbon copy of BC.

Concentration of power within the Premier's office, engineered in 2002 by former aides in Ralph Klein's office at the Alberta Legislature, has finally being exposed, however, those who participated are now running to be Campbell's surrogate. These former Alberta Conservative aides then moved on to Harper's office in Ottawa.

Just what it is about Conservatives these days, this includes the BC Coalition Socred Liberals, when their legislation resembles that of a dictatorship?

The courage of middle eastern countries is a living example of what can be accomplished when people first understand how they are being deceived then how they must act together to make it better.

Thanks to Andrew N. and The Tyee for this article.

Another badly needed informative article, which shines light on either the greed, incompetence or both, that our governments develop when left unchallenged by the electorate.

Appearances and Reality....

But then, what does a revolutionary look like?

Actually, most look like Joe and Jane Average.

So, thanks to Keith Wilson's lectures ...

it has also prompted more disgruntled Albertans to join the Wildrose Alliance in droves. (In one tiring week alone Wilson spoke to 2,500 citizens in Southern Alberta).

If this is considered an accomplishment advancing democracy in any way, shape or form, Alberta is doomed for the forseeable future.

Wildrose Leader, Danielle Smith, is another Straussian-minded neo-con in the mold of Stephen Harper. This massive sign-up to the Wildrose sounds like a Canadian echo to those US Tea Partiers flocking to join Sarah Palin and the Republicans.

Nuances

Interesting to see Andrew Nikiforuk writing so favourably about a member of the Wild Rose Alliance, and Property Rights. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand must be smiling in their graves.

Right Reformism I...

"Wildrose Leader, Danielle Smith, is another Straussian-minded neo-con in the mold of Stephen Harper. This massive sign-up to the Wildrose sounds like a Canadian echo to those US Tea Partiers flocking to join Sarah Plain and the Republicans." samuidave.

I think, an astute observation, samuidave.

Given the degree of destruction of "the left" in North American politics, as largely the consequence of the cold war McCarthyite period in our politics, that lasted pretty much throughout the 50s, but also the failure of "official" Communism, politics continent wide has been largely skewed "rightward". Which is how the Liberals could come off as "progressive" and the NDP, "the left" over and since the same period.

There are signs it is perhaps beginning to come unravelled now, since the turning of the economic and political tide within capitalism everywhere in the 70s, and the now evident failure of "liberal" and "social democratic" ideology, but still, "reformism" itself remains skewed "right". Even the traditional and quintessential "parties of reform", certainly within Canada, the Liberals and NDP, are ever drifting further right into the embrace of "free market capitalism" themselves. Though their old "reformist language", now devoid of any serious meaning or content is still there.

And this process now, in my view, is likely to continue until such time as the failure of "Right Reformism" is now made completely evident by the continued failures of free market capitalism itself. For now, The Beast is still being stoked with cheap labour and Corporate State concession gifts, for which it has developed an insatiable appetite, and producing no positive socio-economic development results, certainly for the masses and the nation. Indeed, it is to our cost, the gifts to the corporations not dropping from the sky.

continued next post...

Right Reformism II...

continuing from previous post...

Indeed, as this failure of Right Reformism becomes entirely obvious across all capitalism, it is my view, we are all headed for our own particular Egyptian moments. Which again in my view, will be a good thing, and finally drive the working masses away from capitalism, and compel them to begin to clarify and articulate... for themselves... the new kind of democratic socio-economic and political order that is needed to get society beyond this "free market rut" it is stuck in. Half a brain concluding that democracy now needs to begin to be applied to the economy and its enterprises/ institutions, no less than a new form of democracy which gives greater weight to the input and control of the masses, and away from vanguard "partyism" altogether, to politics and the State.

That the turn in this "leftward" direction is actually what needs to occur, becomes clearer and clearer. It remains for but the collective brain and will to catch up to this need.

Meanwhile, "Right, increasingly Fascist Reformism" will continue to run amok across the land, and to the accumulating harm of the economy and the masses... in turn ever more calling up the inevitable gathering storm.

Concentrate on who for a moment

The western democracies are in danger since the war. Under attack, it seems clear. Everybody has a favourite candidate for who's to blame.

For Ed Deak, for example, it's beancounters gone wild. For lots of people it's everybody who disagrees with them, for politicians it's everybody on the other side. All of them, all of us are right, all of those are part of it for sure.

I think it's crooks in power. These guys all see the crunch coming. The old Malthusian twostep on the dance card and it scares the spit right out of them.

So, being crooks, with the usual conman attitude that you never give a mark an even break, they're taking the opportunity to steal the whole damn world, all at once. No plans to share the wealth, to create infrastructure to save the world. They just don't care, and they're too stupid to see the fly in their soup.

They just want to win, even if it's at the cost of the whole game.

This guy represents the one thing these twits really have to fear. An honest man, with a good suit, calling bullshit on them, out loud and in public.

The lesson of Tommy Douglas is not lost, even if the lesson of the Bastille is.

This is all about Wind Energy. The SCAM-OF-THE-CENTURY.

That is incredible. $13B to $20B worth of Transmission upgrades for Alberta. So about $16.5B for power transmission. With Small Modular Nuclear Reactors at $3-5k per kw, initial builds. With scaled up factory production likely to drop to $1.5-3k per kw. $16.5B would buy 5.5-11 GW of new ZERO-CO2 power generation, doubling Alberta's current avg demand of 6.8 GW. And since SMR's can be located close to Power Consumers - NEGLIBLE Transmission upgrades needed.

This madness has got to be about Wind Energy. Big Oil/NG considers Nuclear Energy its #1 Enemy, and knows it doesn't have a worry in the world as long as it can stifle Nuclear Energy. So it promotes Wind Energy which push Electricity prices sky high, with NO Reduction in Fuel Consumption. Alberta has 806 MW of Wind Energy and another 1040 MW is under construction. 1800 MW of Wind will require 1700 MW of NG power plants as shadowing/backup plus long distance transmission lines from mostly SW Alberta to the rest of Alberta. Plus Grid Stabilization costs. Wind cost @ 14 cents per kwh is easily doubled by the added cost of transmission & backup upgrades. With ZERO CO2 reduction.

In Ontario with 1457 MW of Wind installed. And another 4032 MW under development, for 5489 MW total. Already Baseload demand in Ontario is covered by Nuclear and Hydro running at min capacity. So what happens when you add 5.5 GW of Wind at night? Well it is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS ENERGY! You have to either 1) Throw Hydro away down the spillway 2) Shutdown Nuclear – which costs more than it saves or 3) PAY Quebec & Ohio to take the worthless Energy. On Jan 1 Ontario had to PAY an incredible 13.8 cents per kwh to get rid of Wind Energy. Of course, the logical thing to do would be to just reject the worthless Wind Energy, but [UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] McGuinty has decreed that Wind Energy gets Pride-of-Place on the Grid and MUST be accepted.

[UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] Campbell & McGuinty pushing expensive intermittent Electricity Sources. Oil State Alberta spending $billions needlessly on transmission upgrades. All this is rapidly pushing up the cost of Electricity across Canada. Electricity being the CLEANEST & GREENEST Energy supply in Canada. And Domestically produced, not imported. Oil supplies 32% of Canada’s Energy. Much of it imported. Obvious thing it focus on Oil consumption not Electricity supply. And why the concerted effort to make Electricity more expensive? Could it be, that we are being set up? When the Oil Crash occurs – the last thing the Oil Barons want is Energy Substitution, like using cheap, clean Hydro/Nuclear and NG to replace Oil. Nope, instead they are pushing Wind/NG to waste our precious NG supply on Electricity generation, so we won’t be able to substitute Oil with that either. Like NG powered vehicles & NG->methanol supplanting Oil for heat & fuel, which should be #1 priority right now. Not NG/Wind Electricity Generation.

Good Suits...

"This guy represents the one thing these twits really have to fear. An honest man, with a good suit, calling bullshit on them, out loud and in public." Bailey.

We might discuss a tad, whether "an honest man with a good suit" is all they have to fear :-), but there is no doubt, the ruling class always fears an "honest man". No doubt. And the world does need more honest men and women. And these folks do, in certain circumstances, when needed, tend to come out of the woodwork from all classes and class strata as important exceptions... and who are also fearless.

And we are moving into another time where honest and fearless folks are desperately needed... in suits or rags.

The things to fear

You're right of course, there would be other things they might fear.

One example, sort of loosely based on the latest news from North Africa and the Middle East... If political corruption were suddenly made a crime. A real one I mean, enforced by an independent agent, Then punished properly by public execution.

Ordinarily, I oppose the death penalty absolutely, having little faith in the good faith of judicial processes. But political corruption is approaching a point where it seems inevitable that it will cause a tipping that will result in hundreds of millions of random deaths.

If corrupt politicians are not brought under control, our children or their children may not survive.

Jerry Munro makes crucial point; Bailey gets to the root

As you point out our shift rightwards, Jerry Munro, we need to know this stuff in order to understand where we are headed. Only an analysis of our politics within the context of the fuller spectrum of political thought gives us perspective.

Here are a few good views on the success of Reagan to shove the western world right.

Reagan Celebration Hides Brutal History

Reagonomics Was Pro Business, Not Pro “Market"

And Bailey points out a very fundamental issue overlooked far too easily by society and, in particular, with our ongoing support for politicians as they now operate: HONESTY.

The ultimate litmus test for politics (and life), imo, is ethics and conscionable behaviour. When politicians are considered relatively honest because they keep 65-80% of their promises, our support for this type of politics needs reassessment.

Truly Said...

"The ultimate litmus test for politics (and life), imo, is ethics and conscionable behaviour. When politicians are considered relatively honest because they keep 65-80% of their promises, our support for this type of politics needs reassessment." wrote samuidave.

Amen, brother. Amen.

No surprise the bills are opposed by Wildrose

From reading this article, it is not clear to me that Nikiforuk understands the bills or even what Wilson wrote about them.

The legislation does not harm "ordinary citizens". Rather it builds on the long-standing concept that landowners should not be able to block projects that are in the public good. The landowners, many of whom acquired their large holdings from government at low cost, are more than fairly compensated for impacts on their land.

@morechatter

Did you read the bills? Do you have any understanding of how the system works? Do you know how the Surface Rights Board calculates compensation and that payments for use of private land is much more than the market value of the land? Do you really think the Wildrose Party is less right wing than the Conservatives?

reallife

If ever there was a corrupt government it is the Alberta Conservatives. And with Harper at the helm it is something to watch out for, 5h3 public good. Why even have the bill? I'm not buying into the idea it is for the public good because government already has plenty of power to do just that but has soon little initative as homeless Canadians are dying on Canadian streets.

The Dream State of Denial

"The legislation does not harm "ordinary citizens". Rather it builds on the long-standing concept that landowners should not be able to block projects that are in the public good." realife

And we know who really determines, as the power behind the bourgeois parliamentary throne, what is and is not in the public interest... don't we?

Well, we do. You seem to still be living in that dream state of denial.

"The Conservatives are ensuring "ordinary citizens" will not get in the way of greedy corporations hell bent on destroying the environment for the profits of a few." responds morechatter.

Who gets it, and is actually living in realife.

morechatter, I wonder ...

do you think there is a Party anywhere on the Canadian political radar that is going to be 'good' (looking after the public interests, first and foremost) rather than 'less bad' than the Conservatives you are railing against?

This infighting between us, the population, as to the merits of this unethical Party or that unethical Party is called 'divide and conquer' aided by 'keeping the people distracted' from what is really going on. This Party hoax works for the political ringmasters and they aren't going to give it up without resistence. And the stunned public, which becomes just plain stupid once this fact is pointed out to them and they still ignore it, refuse to even try to diagnose why things are so wrong.

One guys yells, "I'd rather be whipped"; the next gal, "not me, I prefer water-boarding". It's bloody ridiculous.

100+ years of Party politics, and we are still trying to get them to provide something quasi-democratic like proportional representation or effective recall legislation or free votes in the House. But when they need $2 billion for a weekend G-20 bender for the international cartel of thieves and war criminals parading behind 'public servant' masks, Wham!, no questions asked.

At The Very Root...

"This infighting between us, the population, as to the merits of this unethical Party or that unethical Party is called 'divide and conquer' aided by 'keeping the people distracted' from what is really going on. This Party hoax works for the political ringmasters and they aren't going to give it up without resistence." samuidave.

Which is the other issue, of course. :-) And true.

The Egyptians in Tahrir Square are calling for, in addition to the departure of Mubarak... "regime change". Now precisely what these folks mean by that, I nor we are of course privy.

But here there is a regime no less as well. First it involves a ruling class ownership of "the commanding heights" of the economy, along with a political system to enshrine that into law and the means to enforce that class arrangement.

And part of that "capitalist political regime" in our "culture" or "historical tradition" has evolved an arrangement of "parties", all more or less agreed on the "economic class arrangement". And these "parties" duel with paper mache swords, to fool the masses into thinking they have an actual "democracy", but really, it is all a highly ritualized and rather lady and gentleman arrangement. All very civilized.

But the point is, going back to Egypt and regime change, that this entire "regime ruling arrangement", starting in the economy and working through the political protection and control system, all comes as a package deal. Likewise the "parties" to it. And if they all don't know it, wellll, they are simply damned fools who choose not to see what is there right before them.

We need "regime change" too, near as much as the Egyptians. Top to bottom, starting in the economy foundation and going on up through the political and party superstructure that flows therefrom.

We need a regime, if one be inclined to call it that, that starts with democratic control, operation and management of the economy, with a democratic political system to similarly protect and serve the "new" class power arrangement there, based in communities and on new systems of citizen power and control over the political management institutions. People Power over and rather than "Party Power Blocs" that serve their own and a privileged class interests in the economy.

Those that now stand in the way of this "regime change" are, in addition to the ruling class itself, Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers and Greens et al in the political arrangement. They are all at the root of the problem.

The "regime" in Egypt is not the only backward and anti-democratic socio-economic and political formation on the planet.

this says it well ...

"The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power." – Aneurin Bevan, Labour Party (UK) minister, 1897-1960

But you can substitute Party freely for Conservative, I believe.

Found in this month's Anti-Empire Report #90 by William Blum

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer90.html

this most relevant paragraph:

I hope you all noticed this paragraph, at a time when a BC PPP is warning of 14% rate hikes: "Under Alberta's dysfunctional electrical deregulation policy, Alberta taxpayers must pay for new lines, but AltaLink gets to own them. The company is also guaranteed a nine per cent rate of return."

When people voted to 'run government like a business, did that also include using taxpayer's dollars to pay for guaranteed profits? This is just robbery, pure and simple. They want to see what they can get away with, as they see it has been done already in BC, and no one does a thing.

Reality check

"100+ years of Party politics, and we are still trying to get them to provide something quasi-democratic like proportional representation or effective recall legislation or free votes in the House."

Referendums in 3 provinces killed electoral reform. The people didn't want change. So much for the revolution.

Pro-rep exists in most other democracies. Across western Europe you'll find democracies with both pro-rep and political parties.

One can complain about one's fellow citizens for not supporting electoral reform but one can't say the option was never offered.

uh huh

"Those that now stand in the way of this "regime change" are, in addition to the ruling class itself, Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers and Greens et al in the political arrangement. They are all at the root of the problem."

Yup, and there's a hell of a lot more of us. What a wonderful world it would be though to live in a state of constant revolution.

I think we should have a referendum to decide if people want to be governed by the political party that gets the most votes or by angry protesters.

This is not a surprise!

The electrical producers (read exporters) have wanted for a long time to "increase intertie opportunities" - their quote not mine. With limited interties to Saskatchewan & BC; and a brand new intertie to Montana - more will be around the corner. It's not to supply Calgary or Edmonton or even the industrial wasteland between Fort Saskatchewan and Fort McMurray. Its for our power hungry neighbours to the south.

Bill 50

I would agree with Whitehair that these new lines are intended primarly for export, to the profit of ATCO, AltaLink, and SNC Lavalin.

Is it an accident that former Premier Ralph Klein and former EUB Chair Neil McCrank went on to work for the law office representing AltaLink? Is it an accident that SNC Lavalin has a nuclear division?

These HVDC lines are only suitable for long distance transmission. They don't readily lend themselves to incorporating decentralized generation like renewables, cogeneration, or modest-sized gas plants. They are exactly what would be needed for the export of power from large centralized generators, whether coal or nuclear-fired.

Just try to get Stelmach, Morton, or the AESO to admit that!

Renewables are Highly Centralized Energy

A popular misconception, or more rightly Disinformation, that Renewables are Decentralized Energy. They Ain't. The Big Two are Wind & Hydro. Hydro is located in typically remote areas where the big rivers & mountains are. And require large long distance power transmission.

Wind is located in remote areas where there is a high avg Wind Resource. In Alberta, mostly the South West. This power must be transmitted long distances to markets. To add misery to madness, the Wind Power is virtually useless by itself, it needs to be complemented by other sources so that necessitates long distance transmission. And the transmission lines are 3X oversized, since avg Wind Energy is 1/3rd or less of peak output. Also a part of the $16B is for Grid Stabilization, which is required due to the intermittency of Wind. So this $16B is mostly about expensive, unreliable, intermittent, environmentally destructive Wind Energy.

Big Nuclear does not require long distance transmission. It can be located close to major load centers, such as Calgary, Edmonton or the Tar Sands.

And the New Small Modular Reactors, which dozens of companies are building, and have been used in marine (mostly military) shipping for 4 decades, are coming. They can be located close to Energy consumers, for building heat, process heat in industry and power generation.

Canada was ahead of the Rest of the World, with the Slowpoke III, 10 MWth reactor. Cost $10M or $1k per kwth, cheaper than Coal & NG, way cheaper than Oil, suitable for heat & power for small Northern Communities and Mining Camps which rely on expensive, job killing, smoke belching, terrorist funding Oil for most of their Energy. Also could have been used in fuel guzzling Ocean Shipping. Unfortunately, the Slowpoke III was blocked by despicable pseudo-Greenie groups who get their funding from Big Oil Family Foundations. Canada could have been the World Leader in this clean, green technology. True ETHICAL Energy. Not Big Oil Harper's Tar Sands Charade.

Kleptocracy

Alberta is a kleptocracy -- if the regime is not scamming the citizens out of resource royalties or taking their land to build transmission lines for private companies -- it's accusing them (not convicting them in a court of law) of crimes and confiscating their property/bank accounts as 'proceeds from crime'.

It is astonishing to witness the Kremlin-esque devolution here.

Frank, you are right in noting that electoral reform

...has been presented and voted down. But I believe you too routinely discount the shaping of thought and opinion by those in command of politics.

It is not nearly enough for the population to know of some thing called 'propaganda' and then carry on. Our ideological indoctrination is so pervasive that, like children bombarded with religious dogma, we barely stand a chance of having any other view.

I do not for a moment think that if the people understood electoral reform and its implications, that they would not resoundingly support it.

Be honest here, Frank, and explain off the top of your head how proportional representation was going to work, and how the votes were going to be counted. Sure, the question posed at the Box was easy enough to grasp, but what were we 'really' voting for? Who really knew?

It reminds me of the Canadian-United States Free Trade Agreement (now NAFTA) deal under Mulroney where, if I am not mistaken, despite the public not being offered a referendum of the matter, everyone knew a vote for Mulroney in 1988 was a vote for the FTA.

Well, three issues arise immediately:

One, why was a referendum on such a historic matter never offered the people? Why did Mulroney bundle the FTA with the Federal election? Because he understood Party politics and our flawed electoral system.

Two, who seriously knew the implications of this FTA outside of the political rhetoric on each side? Who read the Agreement itself? I recall getting a copy in a large, soft-covered book from the government (and an Appendix if memory serves me correctly), and I read it. But I can also tell you that it was such a quasi-legal text that few laypeople would be able to understand it comprehensively (I know I sure didn't).

Three, other than the abject failure of the Party system to serve Canadians democratically, why was Mulroney, who only drew 43% of the popular vote (thus 57% opposed him and/or FTA), able to inflict this mess on the entire nation?

I don't know how much evidence you will need before you, Frank, before you will recognize that the people have little to no charge over government. We enter the polls with beliefs taught by, in part public-purse, propaganda and political ideology; the government gains power FPTP and has no obligation to act in accordance with the voters' popular will; and when the government goes off the track there is nothing we can effectively do but, at best, vote for the lesser of the evils next time.

Until we all recognize the problems and challenges we face as effective idiots to the political sham, we will remain enslaved to it.

In this sense, I believe, one is either moving in the right direction in thought and act, or one is moving in the wrong direction, aiding the perpetuation of this oppressive political paradigm against us all.

samuidave

Are you saying you didn't understand how the voting method would work under STV? That was a fear campaign launched by those opposed to reform. Yet there was oodles of information on it and lots of us debated that subject here on the Tyee endlessly. Anyone who was interested in knowing how it worked had lots of websites to go to where they showed exactly how it worked. You could even fill out sample ballots and the website would walk you right through it.

Yet in spite of the fact people knew more about STV than they had 4 years earlier when it almost reached the 60% threshold their support for it collapsed. NDPers believed Shreck and Tielman who claimed it was a right-wing plot to keep them out of government and others believed the usual opinion leaders that it would mean the end of right-wing majority governments and would give the NDP a seat at the table. And of course some believed it would mean not having a local MLA.

Given that people vote in what they think is their interests rather than in what is actually in their interests I guess the result could have been predicted. People are, and were, easily swayed by propaganda.

samuidave

"But I believe you too routinely discount the shaping of thought and opinion by those in command of politics."

Actually, from our conversations I've come to believe the opposite. I think I'm well aware of the corrosive effect propaganda has on the populace and you (seemingly) shrug it off.

For example, on another thread today you again defended not voting because the system is broken. Well, not voting doesn't fix it, it exacerbates it. That vote is your only chance of fixing the system and if you can't find a single individual to vote for then it means you have lost and the system has won. Yet somehow you expect the system to feel bad and change itself to accommodate you.

As for Mulroney, he won with rules that were there before he ran for election. He didn't make the rules. He could have lost the election if the Liberals or NDP had been able to grab more of the anti-free trade vote from the other. And he would have lost that election if we had had STV or even MMP as our electoral system.

"I don't know how much evidence you will need before you, Frank, before you will recognize that the people have little to no charge over government."

Voting under the present system and voting against changing that system leaves us with little control. Not voting leaves us with none. I prefer a little over none. I'd rather vote for the lesser evil than not take part.

"In this sense, I believe, one is either moving in the right direction in thought and act, or one is moving in the wrong direction, aiding the perpetuation of this oppressive political paradigm against us all."

So do I. One is either trying to make things better, make things worse or not participating. My voting puts me among those trying to make things better.

Frank, trying reading what is said before replying, OK?

I said the issue on voting reform was not generally understood. I asked you to lay it out, from recall, explaining the intricacies it entailed -- which you did not. Should one not conclude from your non-reply that it is because you do not know and it is simply too difficult to recall?

Frank: re:propaganda

"I think I'm well aware of the corrosive effect propaganda has on the populace and you (seemingly) shrug it off.

For example, on another thread today you again defended not voting because the system is broken. Well, not voting doesn't fix it, it exacerbates it."

A couple quick points, Frank.

If you understood the ill effects of propaganda on democracy in our times, you would not be rallying blindly for a Party or thinking voter turn-out will change the result.

Further, when has my position and explanation about 'not voting' ever been the status quo rhetoric?

And further, being the faithful supporter of statistical analysis that you are, Frank, knowing roughly half the population does vote, just how large of a sample do you think is necessary before you'd cede that full voter turn-out would not change the results?

~Yet somehow you expect the system to feel bad and change itself to accommodate you.

Yes, Frank, That is precisely what I have been saying. /sarcasm. Let me make it clear to you Frank: The political system will never change for the people without the peoples resistence and, even then, it will do whatever it can to shut the resistence down. Voting does not offer resistence, it endures the system. Your indoctrinated thinking championing Party and voting is part of the problem, Frank. But like all dogmatists, reason won't allow you to see it.

Whenever I suggest that your thinking is problematic for this or that reason, Frank, you cannot simply regress and say "That's you, not me" and believe anyone paying attention is listening.

This reply is simply to point out more errors in your position for anyone reading.

samuidave

What is there to explain about STV or MMP? They're both simple. As simple as voting now. In a nutshell, on STV you walk into a voting booth and in order of preference select the candidates you want. You can vote for only 1 if you like, or more. With MMP you can select a local candidate and also vote for a party preference.

Was that so hard? What intricacies? There are none assuming you're able to write a grocery list.

To turn your other point back, if you understood propaganda and its effect on democracy you would see that your campaign of non-participation is exactly why "the people" vote for governments you say they don't want.

Non-voting is all about maintaining the status quo. Again, you need to understand why that is.

Municipal governments are considered legitimate with less than 20% turnout so if your long-term goal is that elections will no longer be legitimate if you and coyote don't vote then you're going to be waiting forever.

"Voting does not offer resistence (sic), it endures the system."

Really, and you call my thinking "indoctrinated" and "dogmatic". Your argument goes nowhere but you can't see that.

As I said, "Yet somehow you expect the system to feel bad and change itself to accommodate you."

You don't like hearing that but that is exactly what your non-answer says. That you can take your ball (or vote) and go home and the system will eventually change to accommodate you. You have no data to suggest that, only a naive belief that one day the system will change because you don't participate.

Newsflash for you, the system doesn't care if you vote.

"This reply is simply to point out more errors in your position for anyone reading."

That's what I love about your posts, you always think you're talking in an auditorium to some huge audience. I'm probably the only one reading your non-reply samuidave, but your conceit won't accept that reality either.