considerealization

Of course I am aware of the "notwithstanding clause", but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, "it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter" and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: "rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable".

To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.

I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.

See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp

The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding  type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them

The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.

It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.

There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.

The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.

Edit: it’s helpful imo to skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy to get a sense of how varied and expansive democratic governance is.

That platitude does not convince me of anything. Some things should obviously require a super majority, or require additional process beyond voting, or not be subject to a vote ad all.

Majoritarian rule is not the end all be all of a functioning democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom has an interesting take on the wave of separatist movements. It traces it to a reactionary “politics of eternity”, which is being supported and advanced by authoritarian regimes to undermine the established order based on trade democratic deliberation. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum

Now that X and Meta have become dedicated propaganda platforms, and I don’t know that it’s even possible for the government or researchers to get the needed access to determine if there are bad actors manipulating the public in this way now.

From Snyders view, one of the aims of this global effort is to convince people that coordination via democratic deliberation doesn’t work. Proposing ridiculous, highly polarizing referendums and tricking as many people as possible into voting for the most absurd option is a great way to convince everyone that democratic process are stupid, since that is the most degenerate form of democratic activity.

I would refer you to my other comment made.

I don't see a comment that speaks to numbers. You said they are "banning guns outright". If you mean "banning SOME guns outright", then it would be correct, but of course almost everyone thinks some guns should be banned outright. But not all guns are banned outright, you can still own and buy guns.

Please show me a poll showing that 25% of Canadians are single issue gun voters. (I know gun owning families (avid hunters) who had no problem voting for a Liberal PM.)

You are spreading disinformation, because it is not true that guns are banned “outright”. Specific classes of firearms are.

But How many more votes are really at stake thru your (apparently) favored pet issue? How many Canadians who would consider voting lib do you really think are single issue gun voters?

Avoiding detergent packs is better: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkart/2021/08/08/study-says-up-to-75-of-plastics-from-detergent-pods-enter-the-environment-industry-says-they-safely-biodegrade/

True. Also could be they lower the price point due to lack of demand, and that pulls in folks who otherwise wouldn't have traveled to compensate somewhat. But they probably also have less money to spend and would do shorter trips...

I hope Europe and Asia get the message...

Bonus also is you are not creating value that is directly fueling the unfolding nightmare there.

Isn't match already such a unified expression? Especially once you extend matches with guards, it seems to me like this is a solved problem. E.g.,

if x == 1.0 then "a" else "x"

is

match x with | 1.0 -> "a" | _ -> "b"

and

if x ==
  1.0 then "a"
  2.0 then "b"
      else "z"

is (and IMO reads much clearer this way):

match x with
| 1.0 -> "a"
| 2.0 -> "b"
| _ -> "z"

and

if xs
  .isEmpty then "e"
  .contains(0,0) then "n"
  else "z"

is

match () with
| _ when x.isEmpty -> "e"
| _ when x.contains(0,0) then "n"
| _ -> "z"

and

if person
  .age < 18                 then 18
  is Person("Alice", _)     then person.age
  is Person("Bob", let age) then age
                            else -1

is

match person with
| _ when person.age < 10 -> 18
| Person("Alice", _) -> person.age
| Person("bob", age) -> age
| _ -> -1

.

Finally,

if person is Person("Alice", let age) then age else -1

Would be the simple

match person with
| Person("Alice", age) -> age
| _ -> -1

Seems to me this reads more clear in general and has less magic. Plus, it's already implemented in a bunch of languages.