Billy Ballot Videos

barclayb1 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - This is great! ...and that Billy sure has a sexy voice ;)

OCAAA1 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - This is a fun look at politics and the system that will be voted on in October.

7bars Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Awesome video! Nina's voice sounds so familar.

VoteForMMP Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Vote for MMP

Sfinnish Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Great job!

charleygordonFFA Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - very informative, thank you.

ethansjsmith Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Excellent video. Thanks for sharing it. I'll be voting for MMP! :)--Ethan

railfanca Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - It's a well done piece of propoganda, but MMP is a terrible idea for Ontario. List MMPs offer no accountability to anyone but their parties and it begs the very important question: Who represents who to who? I, for one, will be voting against MMP. The most significant problem in our system of government is that the parties have too much power over the political agenda and system. MMP legitimises rather than solves this problem and further empowers parties.

hooraymonger Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - List members will be responsive and accountable to every elector in Ontario, since every vote counts towards their inclusion in the Legislature. If a member is not responsive, they make their party's list less attractive, and receive both internal and external pressure.Parties have the power to favour policies, but under MMP they only have as much power as the popular vote intends.

emperorinsaino Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Can you suggest a way to reduce the power of political parties, in a way that also better represents the intentions of voters than First Past the Post?

railfanca Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Yes.Preferential balloting.

emperorinsaino Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Is switching to Preferential Balloting going to be more difficult, or less after going to MMP?

railfanca Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - In my opinion, switching to any form of preferential balloting will be far more difficult after converting to MMP than if there is a tight margin but defeat for MMP. Such a result would show an appetite for electoral reform but a rejection of this proposal. MMP risks passing the test of "good enough" to prevent any further efforts at meaningful electoral or political reform by removing the sense of urgency. As such, change for the sake of change, as MMP offers, is a risky proposition.

democracyisdead Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - why isn't there a 3rd option on the ballet stating "none of the above"????The problem isn't the representatives, it's the policies. I think it took McGuinty 2 whole days in office before he stated he would not honour his promises.This referendum an illusion of choice.Direct Democracy enables the population to hold representatives accountable for their actions. Provocateur cops, officials failing to investigate, a senate that won't investigate?This crap is a distraction.

gaiatechnician Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Most of the governments in Canada are artificial majoritys.Most of the voters DIDN"T vote for them but they get to govern unopposed. With mmp, it is safer because you need a majority or a compromise to govern. There is nothing wrong with coalition governments. A coalition government IS a majority government in fact and in reason.

lighthammar Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - 30 extra seats = added expense -- salaries/expense accountsfilling in the seats with lobbyists - sure they can be outed in the next election, but what kind of damage can be done while they're in control:Corporate influence in Montebello Quebec. Now, corp's in Canada/USA will be able to fast-track their ugendas. Ie. Parliment buildings sold to USA based company that owns casinos.A Coalition gov't will be able to dictate to the Canada whatever the USA desires.

lighthammar Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Check out:nommp....ca -just copy/paste and earase the extra dots.

lighthammar Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Direct Democracy makes the gov. do what the people tell them to.Why have more representatives blatantly lying and getting away with theft?Who hired the 100 people to support MMP?Who payed for this bullshit?

simbrow Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - i disagree this will work it keeps the govt honest it has been tested look at p.e.i. as well around the world i welcome this change as my grandma said u cannot stop change.

simbrow Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - ur fear mongering does not work with me. this is not the usa. if u love ur country like i do then u would embrass the mmp it is change that will work. BELIEVE DO NOT FEAR.

simbrow Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - q how does this become federal when it is provincial p.e.i other provinces will adopt this system

simbrow Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - not at it will be easier let say u like mpp a but not a party u may like party c well u can vote for mpp a as well as party c

sandycats99 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - lighthammar is right. The bottom line is what it's all about. So, to save precious taxpayer's money that would be spent on those 30 "extra" salaries/expense accounts, there should only be ONE seat, that of Supreme Dictator, someone who will rule swiftly and decisively, without tiresome debates or tedious votes. Cheap, ruthless, efficient: who could ask for more?

breakerexpress Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I agree lighthammer, first off the people of Ontario didn't ask for this referendum and the associated costs in the first place. The change was pushed by small splinter parties. The public spoke October 10th and want more accountability. They don't want paid MPPs that have no accountability not to ridings or constituents or any other defined entity or channel.

breakerexpress Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - The people of Ontario want more transparency of the use of their tax dollars, at all levels of government. The Ontario public want to eliminate misuse, abuse and squandering of their money. Taking all of the potential costs above into account, it's likely that each of the 22 extra members would incur around $150,000 each which would mean an additional cost of about 3.3 million dollars a year.