At last, someone from the world of politics is being honest about a pervasive and harmful trade-off. When home prices rise faster than earnings, owners like me gain wealth, while non-owners lose because their incomes fall further behind housing costs.
Honesty is saying that home prices have to fall. But this is progress.
The Generation Squeeze folks have recommendations.
Can’t wait for whatever policy to be implemented so poorly it ends up raising house prices.
At this point, I’m certain the intention is still to prop up housing but make voters think he finally gives a shit about them so he gets re-elected. Based on his track record, I don’t have any reason to believe him.
But Pierre Poliviere’s platform of “own the libs” including banning abortion and being against trans rights is not an option.
We need ranked choice voting.
You seem to have simply forgotten about the NDP.
I think that is OP’s implication with ranked choice voting. With FPTP voting federal NDP can be the equivalent of tossing away your vote, where as with ranked ballot they would stand a chance.
Yes, ranked choice voting allows people to vote for who they want elected without being forced to vote “strategically” in what amounts to a horrible two-party system like the USA.
The problem is that idea of “strategic” voting only exacerbates the problems with fptp. If everyone voted for who they wanted, NDP would be getting a lot more votes.
Strategic voting is a self fulfilling prophecy.
“Getting more votes” doesn’t help in FPTP unless you actually get a plurality of the votes.
If everyone voted honestly, the biggest effect of the NDP would be to help the conservatives win more elections.
I disagree. When everyone votes for who they actually want, everyone, including the political strategists in charge of trying to figure out how their party can win, can see what the voters really want. Yes, they will still play nasty games, but at least it will be with an awareness that there are actually a lot of people who prefer different policies.
Possibly, at least initially. But maybe the conservative strategists would see that they are courting a smaller fringe than if they had courted the socially progressive. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve long thought that most policies and platforms in all parties were designed to lead to victory rather than to adhere to some principled ideology.
That would only really work if Liberals and NDP splitting the socially progressive vote doesn’t cause them to consistently lose.
What’s the stable equilibrium of everyone voting honestly? Each party moves to get about a third of the votes? You could reliably have an election where 2/3rds of the electorate would prefer anyone but the conservative, yet the conservative wins?
FPTP is a garbage tier electoral system.
That’s actually the inverse of what ranked choice does.
Ranked choice fulfills “later-no-harm”; filling out a third choice can never hurt your second or first choice.
Because of that, it fails “favorite betrayal”; there are times when you get a worse outcome by voting for your honest favorite.
That’s mostly because ranked choice doesn’t consider your second or third picks until your first and second have been eliminated. So there’s a bunch of weird edgecases where a compromise candidate with enough second, third etc. votes to win in the final round gets eliminated early on before they actually get any second, third etc. place support.
Suppose there’s an election like that where the Liberal is the compromise candidate that could beat either the NDP or Conservative candidate in the final round, but because the NDP and Conservative get more first-place votes, the election goes Conservative. Depending on the particulars, NDP voters could potentially have elected the Liberal by staying home, or even by voting Conservative. Either way, they’d have been better off strategically voting for the Liberal than voting honestly for the NDP.
In general, voting honestly in ranked choice is only safe either if you’re voting for a fringe third party that could never win or if you’re voting for one of the two candidates with the most total popularity.
I try to avoid telling people who to vote for but they are a viable alternative.
We need open-list MMP or some other form of non-party-list PR. Ranked choice helps, but it still means that non-hyperlocal constituency groups can be ignored. Since old people vote in droves and there are old people everywhere, local winner-take-all systems like FPTP and yes, ranked-choice, still let the politicians ignore the youth.
Regional-proportional systems like STV or MMP let a constituency in the region that has enough people for a rep regionwide but not enough for any single riding get a voice in the assembly.
I mean, on the downside, this includes Nazis. But on the upside, this includes renters.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-end-1st-past-the-post-voting-in-platform-speech-1.3114902
Yeah in 2015…aged like milk.
Right???
I don’t know about ranked choice voting, frankly I believe the foxes are in the hen house and there isn’t much we can do…
But like… who do I vote for? The conservatives that still want to hate on basic sexual health and destroy healthcare? The liberals that want to do a few nice things but stop short of meaningful change?
Like…. ???
Here’s hoping that the ndp pull out a huge and useful platform, because that would be great, but after a few years in charge, they’ll do the same and still screw the populace.
I can’t trust any of them.
Ranked choice is the worst possible voting reform. We should not want that for our federal government. It strongly favours the party that would be most people’s second choice. It would guarantee the Liberals the government for the rest of time.
I haven’t been following this closely but the last thing I heard about was a big hand out to property developers, as if they need any more wealth and power and influence in our system lol
The handout is dependent on the city updating their zoning laws to make building higher density easier.
Not just easier, if we can zone an area that only has single family homes, then we can zone an area that can have minimum density requirements for each building. No paying a fine to ignore zoning or putting density in the corner of the lot only to meet requirements. We dont need these developments to be easier to build, we need to build them no matter what.
deleted by creator