Can we just talk about Mike’s appreciation for Bob? He knew that Bob started the AV club, knew that he had a fundraiser for equipment, and taught Mr. Clarke everything he knew about AV. Ted is such a useless father and Mike had probably started to really look up to Bob.
i think a lot about how the track that plays when Mike is talking about how Bob created the AV Club is named “Eulogy” and it just makes me want to cry? because Mike was giving a eulogy. And the idea that Bob even had a eulogy makes me so sad. bob deserved so much better.
the same track plays when Nancy sits in the Holland’s home bathroom crying.
In Season 1, when Dustin calls him late at night about building a sensory deprivation tank, his first thought isn’t to ask why on Earth he’s calling, the first thing he says is “are you alright?”
This is so sweet, it’s late at night, and he more than likely knows about Dustin’s lack of a father figure, so his first thought isn’t to turn him away, but to help and support him emotionally, and I just love that.
Building on that, I kind of want to see more of a relationship form between Dustin and Mr Clarke in season 3. Between this and Dustin wanting to share his discovery of Dart, it’s clear he shares a closer bond with Mr Clarke than the other boys do. Perhaps, much like Bob Newdy was to him, Mr Clarke can become even more of a mentor to Dustin.
Short Answer: Proportional Representation is when government accurately reflects the population. Winner-take-All ensures the government does not.
The Liberal Party traditionally favours AV (almost what we have now). Election results would be within about 5% of what we are used to. This givesthe appearance of reform while protecting the status quo. But one party can still get all the power. The Liberals think AV will help them be that party– the one with all the power– the winner.
(What we have now is called First Past the Post, AV might be called Second Past the Post because second choice parties have an advantage– which is why the Liberal Party likes it.)
Longer Answer (with a little more detail, but still pretty concise– for me):
There are 2 kinds of electoral systems:
Proportional Representation electoral systems– in which the election results in a government that reflects the votes each party gets… ie if Party A gets 39% of the votes it gets only 39% of the power, OR
Winner-Take-All electoral systems– in which the election results in a government that gives a disproportionate amount of power to a single party… ie Party A’s 39% of the votes can mean 100% of the power, as the Harper Government has now.
Right now we have a winner-take-all system known as First Past The Post. This traditionally has allowed the Conservative and Liberal parties to take turns running the country in a series of serial dictatorships. Over the last century or so, more than 80% of developed countries have adopted Proportional Representation. (Countries with good social programs like free post secondary education and 100% universal health care AND pharmacare– countries that have governments that actually do what their citizens want– have PR.)
Rather than adopting PR, the Liberal Party would rather adopt another winner-take-all system called AV (and rebranded as “Preferential Ballot” and any other name they think will help sell it). There is not a great deal of information about AV because almost all the countries that adopted it have since converted to PR. The Liberals like it because it is thought to give an advantage to 2nd choice parties– which the Liberals think they are.
Electoral reform scholars believe AV is worse than FPTP because it will make it harder to elect women and minorities.
The hold-outs against PR are Canada, USA and England. 2 elections ago England had a terrible election result and people were so up in arms the government promised a referendum, but by the time they had one, somehow they had eliminated PR from the choice. England resoundingly rejected AV. And now England’s last election gave an even WORSE result– 2 million Brits voted Green ad got only 1 seat! And what has happened since is that their formerly conservative Labour Party has just elected a wild eyes socialist (like the American Bernie Sanders or the Canadian Elizabeth May)… so I think they are finally on the road to PR.
WHAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THE LIBERAL STANCE
…is that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party has adopted the language that has been used by Fair Vote Canada to describe Proportional Representation to sell themselves as electoral reformers– without actually adopting a policy of Proportional Representation.
This strongly suggests the Liberal Party is deliberately misleading Canadians.
All the LPC has promised is electoral reform, but no commitment to Fair Voting. Fair Vote Canada is a multi-partisan organization– people from all parties are part of it. Liberal Party members have been lobbying hard inside their party, and so the Liberal Party understands the issue very well indeed. One of my Liberals for Fair Voting friends told me she “guarantees” the Liberal Party will adopt PR because the party is devoted to evidence based policy, because all electoral reform evidence shows PR is the better system.
EXCEPT if this was true, the Liberal Party would be supporting it NOW.
The last time the LPC supported PR was in the 1930s– at a time they had no hope of forming government. In the 70′s Pierre Trudeau came out in favour of PR– during the 6 months Joe Clark replaced him as Prime Minister. But when Justin’s father rolled back into power with another phony majority, he never said another word about PR. This is not surprising.
Winner-take-all systems are designed to create a boss– an authority– someone who will tell us what to do…an elected king, or emperor. What power seeking person can turn that down?
I think of it in Lord of the Rings terms. Winner-Take-All is the One Ring. Even Gandalf was afraid to take the ring (Tom Mulcair?) but only Galadriel had the strength to say no (Elizabeth May?) Frankly, the fact Justin Trudeau is still promoting Bill C-51 scares the spit out of me. (I’ll leave you to decide which LotR character to compare with him)
I know this is hard because we have no experience of it. (When my husband first started talking about PR (he was helping with the MMP referendum) I only sort of got it. What helped me enormously was John Cleese:
What we do know is the Harper Government is about to be voted out.
And we also know that even the best polls are not 100% accurate… and those we see are the ones that prove someone’s agenda. (propaganda.)
And the Liberal Party is desperate to regain its old power.
The powers that be support the status quo (and pay for almost all polls)– and the status quo means Conservative or Liberal. Which is why the 2011 Orange Crush was such a surprise.
The ONLY way to strategically is to vote for the candidate and/or the party that will best represent you. If someone else tells you you can’t do that– that you have no choice but to vote for their candidate, if you do, the very best you can hope for is a government you don’t want. (No wonder Canadians don’t vote!)
Liberals have been telling Canadians we have to vote for them to save us from the other guy my whole life. Even though this strategy has won them plenty of majorities, we are really lucky enough Canadians stubbornly clung to other parties. This is why we are about to elect the very first non-Conservative non-Liberal government in the history of Canada tomorrow. You can help.
Please vote. But be sure to vote for your own strategy, not someone else’s. (and bring a friend…or several) Because Canada can do better.