| |
VE3WBZ > PR 25.10.12 16:24l 50 Lines 1666 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 14530_VE3LSR
Read: GUEST
Subj: PR ...etc
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<VE3UIL<VE3TOK<VE3LSR
Sent: 121025/1412Z @:VE3LSR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM #:14530 [Barrie] $:14530_VE3LSR
From: VE3WBZ@VE3LSR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM
To : PR@WW
TO: PR @WW
FR: VE3WBZ
DT: Wednesday, October 24th.,2012 @ 2000hrs EST <JPST>
Hello Ian,Warren and Barry and any others reading along;
On reading your topic Ian, I looked at the national debate we
had for PR or FVC as they termed it, and I see it is as what
you have for the EU.
They also go onto to explain that the leading "party" with
30% get a share of seats but no specified number, so based
upon our Representation by Population I can find no info in
the FVC material on the subject.
Ian scribes:- Snipping....
" where you tick 1,2,3, etc, for the order in which you
'prefer' the candidates. This leads to the the candidat
most people want, coming in first."
The problem I see here, is loading the seats, and where there
are party ridings that are and have been loyal to that party
so 1,2,3 might be of the same party.
Under the present system, I thought this is how it happens?
Usually the candidate who talks the best deal gets elected
unless voters vote by party loyality. I admit that independents
really stand a small chance of election, but they have been
useful in a bigger vote by support of a party and a sponsored
bill before Parliament.
I am with you on the currency problem. We are seeing here that
border states are acepting Canadian money at par. International
flights to here and there...well yes...I'd like to see
International money...but then theres a pipedream.
I see where you are coming to on prices. We talked about that
on Skype. 75% markup and more is crazy.
Lots of comments on your post, but figured I'd keep it to PR...
or I tired to.
73 Pete VE3WBZ
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
