• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 29th, 2024

help-circle

  • Some liberals did vote in favour of electoral reform, and supported the motion, and had it as part of their platform. But I get your point that they are ultimately responsible for not passing reform. Maybe time to try again.

    Ideally it would be put to Canadians on whether we want to move forward with PR or STV/ranked ballot. Status quo not being an option. Arguably democracy is eroding, this a meaningful pro democracy reform.

    My biggest concern with PR is that it would give a platform to extremists, but I’m less concerned about that these days as they seem to have a platform anyway. The next thing I think we need to consider is whether PR makes sense in the context of Canada, we aren’t a small country geographically and we aren’t homogenous. Local representation matters.






  • Very little of the demand is demand to drive a car. It’s mostly demand to travel as effectively as possible.

    When you build out road networks you make traveling by car more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.

    When you build out transit networks you make traveling by transit more effective, increasing demand on that specific mode.

    When you have well designed cities, you reduce the demand for travel, period.

    Higher population centers have favorable economics for transit vs. Personal vehicles. And are more impacted by pollutants.

    Low population centers have favorable economics for personal vehicles vs. Transit. And are less impacted by pollutants.

    That’s a description of the dynamics anyway.

    I imagine vast majority of people would agree that folks that live in the densist cities need transit, and those living in a forest need a personal vehicle. The debate occurs somewhere in between of the extremes.

    Personally I’m of the opinion that we skew too far towards cars, because the true costs/externalities are harder to see, so what seems like favorable economics is actually just socializing the costs.




  • Alternatively, if there was no Google or Google like company, we would likely be much further along in tech, and have better functioning democracies. They have limited innovation in maps and search products. They rely on being big to be competitive. Their products are pretty poor given their engineering team size. Digital advertising: they bought their way into a quasi monopoly, siphoning dollars from people that actually create things.