Random Thoughts

[DTComposer]

Changes in fashion seem to have ground to halt. A person from 1975 transported to 2000 would stick out like a sore thumb, but as far as I can tell, someone from 2000 transported to 2025 would fit right in (no pun intended).

I'm currently teaching a class at a local university, and last night I saw two students walking together who would have been completely in place in 1977 (flared jeans, polyester floral-pattern button-down shirt) and 1987 (acid-wash jeans, short-sleeved sweater with poofy shoulders).

Fashion hasn't necessarily ground to a halt, it's just become more of wear whatever the hell you want, as long as you're comfortable and feel good about it.

[kphoger]

- 'Fairies' should be a derogatory term for Caucasians, i.e. fair-skinned people.

[vdeane]

One of the segments on the Fly Morning Rush is "Ghosted", where they talk to someone who went on a date with someone and then never heard back afterwards, then call that person and find out what happened and see if they can get them back together.  I've long wondered "aren't they going to end up calling someone who listens to Fly92.3 and knows about this at some point"?  Well, the answer is yes, because it happened on Monday.  While there wasn't any exclamation of "I'm on Ghosted, aren't I?", I'm pretty sure they were thinking about it (especially since "this is about [name], isn't it?" comes pretty close).  Now I'm wondering if anyone ever goes out on a date with someone only to realize part-way through "I heard about you on Ghosted!".

[mgk920]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

Also if Canada had a 'USA Senate-style' upper house?

Mike

[LilianaUwU]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

We're in a democracy, and this would go against that.

[Molandfreak]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

We're in a democracy, and this would go against that.

How so? I believe this is referring to transitioning to a single transferable vote system to ensure that candidates who win a riding receive a majority of support.

[vdeane]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

Also if Canada had a 'USA Senate-style' upper house?

Mike

Is there even a 50% plus 1 requirement in the US?  Given our two-party system, I'm not even sure.  For Canada, I imagine it would require either a runoff or ranked choice voting.

Canada already has a Senate, modeled after the UK House of Lords.  In theory it operates like the US Senate except for how senators are appointed and the term they serve, and the part where the US Senate confirms officials and judges appointed by the Presidents.  In practice it's largely ceremonial.  It does sometimes veto bills passed by the House of Commons, however.

[Big John]

^^ Georgia has the 50% plus one for all elections except US president. Runoff in 3 weeks of the 2 top vote getters if none get 50%.

[hotdogPi]

Is there even a 50% plus 1 requirement in the US?  Given our two-party system, I'm not even sure.  For Canada, I imagine it would require either a runoff or ranked choice voting.

Louisiana does, and some other states such as Georgia do for special elections. If nobody gets a majority, it goes to a top-two runoff.

California and Washington have top-two primaries for Congress, but there's no automatic 50% first round win.

[Molandfreak]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

Also if Canada had a 'USA Senate-style' upper house?

Mike

Is there even a 50% plus 1 requirement in the US?  Given our two-party system, I'm not even sure.  For Canada, I imagine it would require either a runoff or ranked choice voting.

Canada already has a Senate, modeled after the UK House of Lords.  In theory it operates like the US Senate except for how senators are appointed and the term they serve, and the part where the US Senate confirms officials and judges appointed by the Presidents.  In practice it's largely ceremonial.  It does sometimes veto bills passed by the House of Commons, however.

Not in the majority of states. Alaska and Maine have STV systems, and California and Louisiana have jungle primaries for statewide elections where only the top two candidates advance, regardless of party.

[SEWIGuy]

How different would Canada's elections and governance be if winners of lower house seats were required to receive at least 50%+1 of the votes cast?

We're in a democracy, and this would go against that.

Hey look, the country with an appointed Senate and no direct election for head of state is lecturing others about democracy.

[hotdogPi]

no direct election for head of state

Having what is essentially the Speaker of the House become President (using US terminology) is considered a better system, as it prevents gridlock from the branches being in opposite parties. The US Constitution is a very early type of constitution that other countries improved upon because they came later and were able to figure out what worked and what didn't.

[SEWIGuy]

no direct election for head of state

Having what is essentially the Speaker of the House become President (using US terminology) is considered a better system, as it prevents gridlock from the branches being in opposite parties. The US Constitution is a very early type of constitution that other countries improved upon because they came later and were able to figure out what worked and what didn't.

The British had a system similar to what Canada has now long before the United States was an independent country.

The problem with the United States' system now is extreme gerrymandering.

[kkt]

no direct election for head of state

Having what is essentially the Speaker of the House become President (using US terminology) is considered a better system, as it prevents gridlock from the branches being in opposite parties. The US Constitution is a very early type of constitution that other countries improved upon because they came later and were able to figure out what worked and what didn't.

The U.S. framers saw an overpowerful Prime Minister with little oversight from the legislature as a bigger danger than gridlock.

[JayhawkCO]

no direct election for head of state

Having what is essentially the Speaker of the House become President (using US terminology) is considered a better system, as it prevents gridlock from the branches being in opposite parties. The US Constitution is a very early type of constitution that other countries improved upon because they came later and were able to figure out what worked and what didn't.

The U.S. framers saw an overpowerful Prime Minister with little oversight from the legislature as a bigger danger than gridlock.

Sounds familiar.

[vdeane]

no direct election for head of state

Having what is essentially the Speaker of the House become President (using US terminology) is considered a better system, as it prevents gridlock from the branches being in opposite parties. The US Constitution is a very early type of constitution that other countries improved upon because they came later and were able to figure out what worked and what didn't.

The U.S. framers saw an overpowerful Prime Minister with little oversight from the legislature as a bigger danger than gridlock.

Ironic, considering the stated reasons for getting rid of the Articles of Confederation.  Our modern Congress seems to function a lot like the Continental Congress (as in, not at all).

[Molandfreak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Maine uses the single transferable vote system even in presidential elections. It just hasn't affected the outcome of who was awarded the state's electoral votes since it was implemented.