cá độ bóng đá qua mạng_game đánh bài ăn tiền thật_tỷ số bóng đá hôm nay https://www.google.com//600 John Michael McGrath's personal blog. Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:20:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 Comment on Resolving the Crisis of Legitimacy at Toronto City Hall by Bill Elleker https://www.google.com//600/?p=114#comment-2130 Bill Elleker Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:20:14 +0000 /600/?p=114#comment-2130 Well stated. I am not sure that expulsion will stop him…he’s too willing to go all scorched earth in every greedy-for-content forum. Criminal conviction will work.

]]>
Comment on Resolving the Crisis of Legitimacy at Toronto City Hall by Carol Arbour https://www.google.com//600/?p=114#comment-2128 Carol Arbour Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:24:34 +0000 /600/?p=114#comment-2128 thank you for clarifying things….a well-written, informative piece.

]]>
Comment on From the archives: Rob Ford, the TTC, and the crisis of legitimacy at Toronto City Hall by Resolving the Crisis of Legitimacy at Toronto City Hall | John Michael McGrath https://www.google.com//600/?p=108#comment-2126 Resolving the Crisis of Legitimacy at Toronto City Hall | John Michael McGrath Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:16:26 +0000 /600/?p=108#comment-2126 [...] ← Previous [...]

]]>
Comment on Bad Senate ideas: provincial appointment by Graydon Saunders https://www.google.com//600/?p=82#comment-315 Graydon Saunders Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:45:25 +0000 /600/?p=82#comment-315 The problem with voting for a political party is you functionally stop having your MP, whose job it is to help you when you’re having a problem with the machinery of government you can’t resolve using the regular channels. This is pretty much inevitable when you’re looking a party-vote system, and it only gets more pronounced when you’re looking at any kind of proportional representation system. But political party votes are an obvious way to handle complexity and they’re not going away, so, hey, the Senate’s certainly not useful to the Dominion at large right now, we can use it as a fix for this.

If the Commons is the house of political parties, then the Senate (could be) the house of geographic representation.

Divide Canada into areas, ignoring provincial boundaries, since this is a federal office. The areas have a population of about a million people, but using a formula that counts land area as well, so sparsely populated northern regions aren’t ignored. If the area has a net inflow of taxes, it’s a region, with two senators; if it has a net outflow of taxes, it’s a city, with three.

Senators serve a fifteen year term; the first bunch draw straws to see who is up for re-election in five and ten years. Regular, every-five-year elections. You have to live in the area you represent, you can’t have ever been (or become, once elected) a member of a board of directors, a member of a political party, or have run for federal or provincial elected office. Use single-transferable-vote; we’re trying to elect the person least objectionable to the area as a whole.

Every ten years, areas are evaluated for city-vs-region. (So the net-flow-of-taxes formula has to be written down in law somewhere.) If a senator is lost, the senior senator is lost. If a senator is gained, they’re gained at the next election. (so we’d better co-ordinate the 10 year evaluations with the senate elections.)

And yes, it’d open the whole constitutional can of worms. But if that elected Senate had to agree to pass legislation, I think it’d have a beneficial effect.

]]>
Comment on Bad Senate ideas: provincial appointment by Mark Richardson https://www.google.com//600/?p=82#comment-310 Mark Richardson Wed, 29 May 2013 19:01:58 +0000 /600/?p=82#comment-310 I still think we need “Second House” to review items passed by the Elected House of Commons, but need to remove politics and parties for the equation.

How about Senate as “Jury Duty”, with a Single 10 year term – and then vetting of “random” candidate-Senators pulled from the Electoral Rolls of the regions…?

Yes, the Jury system is NOT perfect – but neither is the current-model.

]]>
Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by Joe MacDonald https://www.google.com//600/?p=47#comment-95 Joe MacDonald Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:01 +0000 /600/?p=47#comment-95 I agree John. The community I grew up in, Alderwood, was built up mostly from 1950 on. The QEW was just about in place and, granted, the long Branch street car was available after a very long walk (Mimico, New Toronto and Long Branch were also in place well before a subway). For years we paid a two zone TTC fare. When you transferred at the Humber Loop either way you paid another fare.

With the extension of the subway west, into neighbourhoods that, in many cases were mature, bordered on the city limits, the zone fare system was scrapped. The sprawl north of the 401 was complete well before transit was available. Now, as you say, those who need it most and can afford it least live farther from the city core.

A distance fare may help, but it won’t cure our transit needs. The province has to belly up and we have to face the fact that if we want transit, we all have to pay for it because, ultimately, we all benefit.

]]>
Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by john https://www.google.com//600/?p=47#comment-94 john Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:49:21 +0000 /600/?p=47#comment-94 Adam, that’s certainly a more workable scenario. There are similar examples in the east end you could point to as well, but historically it’s unclear to me whether transit drove settlement, or simply added value for developers selling homes they had already started building. (Though you could argue there’s not too much space between the latter and the former.)

]]>
Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by GIPoo https://www.google.com//600/?p=47#comment-93 GIPoo Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:45:55 +0000 /600/?p=47#comment-93 I feel like this whole discussion is based on the idea that fares would go UP for people travelling farther. But I think a reduction in fare for shorter distances would be more appropriate.

It’s funny that the quote suggests people are over-paying in the core and under-paying in the sprawl. The core pays $3/trip to not have to walk or ride a bike in traffic. The folks in the sprawl pay $3/trip because they have no viable alternative.

To me this amounts to extortion of suburbanites and a luxury tax on downtowners.

]]>
Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by john https://www.google.com//600/?p=25#comment-49 john Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:49:28 +0000 /600/?p=25#comment-49 Adam: Ford reiterated in court that he thought it was ridiculous that he should have to pay money back out of his own pocket. Hackland accepted Ruby’s argument that this was evidence that the money was not insignificant to Ford’s vote.

I’m just clarifying that people aren’t taking one quote from council out of context–Ford’s own statements have been consistent, though perhaps not what he intended.

]]>
Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by Extra, Extra: Portable Bike Lanes, Caretaker Mayors, and Angry Birds | One Stop News Stand https://www.google.com//600/?p=25#comment-33 Extra, Extra: Portable Bike Lanes, Caretaker Mayors, and Angry Birds | One Stop News Stand Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:20:44 +0000 /600/?p=25#comment-33 [...] John Michael McGrath just wants to clear up all your misconceptions about Ford’s court [...]

]]>