Carney had to make some changes to demonstrate he’s not JT

Yes, I can get the sense for this, so I agree.

reduced the size of cabinet for a more wartime stance given the tarriff war we’re in. Also to perform austerity (less ministers to pay extra) while not actually doing austerity (they are responsible for more)

That’s actually pretty smart. The PMO should broadcast this point more.

It’s not cut FFS

I’m using the language of both the post, and the article itself. Both say that the ministries have been cut.

It’s been folded in to another ministry temporarily

Where do you see this? Nowhere in the article could I find this.

This is a very temporary cabinet.

So why make any changes to the structures at all?

When the next election results are known there will be another new cabinet and new ministers again.

How do you know this? Why do a sample run of changing cabinet, when this has real impacts?

He had to show he’s different from JT

Therefore cut the ministry of labour??

And it’s a temporary cabinet as we’re going into an election anyway.

So why make any changes whatsoever, if they’re not intended to be long term?

List of Canadian Alternatives to American owned media pretending to be Canadian

Perhaps they don’t support candidates because they seek to remain apolitical nonpartisan?

I suppose Ontario has given our approval to him, one way or another.

How? The majority of ballots cast, voted for another party.

Also see: Canadian owned and operated media

They aren’t deliberately blocking anything, but rather certificates are expiring.

At the very least, we should consume content from Canadian owned and operated media

We need stronger ally relationships, considering things are going south with our Southern ally!

It’s all add-ons, not just Privacy Badger.

1. Yeah, that’s why your point about “There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago” doesn’t make any sense. Shall we return to the dark ages?
2. I am in support of proportional representation, which can occur independent of political party, similar to FPTP.
3. Ok, so you haven’t addressed my point about political parties existing independent of FPTP. Also, I never even brought up tribalism once, that was the other commenter (nor am I even in favour of it).
4. Yes, democracy only functions when everyone has a say in governance, as proportional representation guarantees. It is the best system of governance, and to say otherwise is shows how nonsensical your thinking is.
5. Yes, we have a two party system because of plurality voting, which is described by Duverger’s law. Elimination of political parties … is impractical.
6. Clearly, you are taking my responses personally. Good luck living life feeling constantly like you are the victim and holier than thou.

In the conversation between you and me, where we already agree (mostly) on electoral reform, the stakes aren’t high.

But otherwise, yes, the stakes are high.

I apologize if my discussions on proportional representation are annoying, that’s not the intention. You can choose to ignore me or even block me if you feel inclined.

There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago

Yeah, back when democracy didn’t exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today’s living standards.

We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.

Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.

political parties from the system wholly impractical

Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it’s factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it’s the most efficient way to organize.

otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.

You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger’s law is the reason we have a “two party” system.

There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…

The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger’s law. You don’t have to think I’m right or wrong, because this is just the reality.

But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.

See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It’s still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.

Can you explain more? What voting scheme did you have in mind?

1. How is it a spin, when the results of the electoral system literally affect every facet of our lives?
2. Perhaps the messaging isn’t aimed towards individuals like yourself.
3. If you’re really bothered, the block function is available.

I suppose, but it certainly draws attention to the movement. And on occasion discussion does come about, in which case that is the opportunity to convince people.

And in the past 2 weeks the !fairvote@lemmy.ca has grown by 60%, so clearly something I’m doing is working.

And for letting us down on proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca