Canadian Election

dignin

reborncareerist wrote:

And the Greens are a giant joke. First off, I don't believe in casting a vote on behalf of a one-issue party, and secondly, the current Green leader comes across as Dion's toady (even Layton thinks so).

one issue eh? maybe you should take a look at there platform then...cause im taking a giant leap here in saying that you have not.

mert

Probably Green or NDP for me... I'd like to vote Liberal just to get the Conservatives out of power, but Dion would make Joe Clark look decisive and powerful....

Remember the good ole days when the Conservative vote was split?

demetrios

not a fan of harper, so .. no soup for you!

dignin

How does everyone here feel about the possibility of proportion representation? And fixed election dates? This i feel would make minority governments the norm if not always, and create an environment in government where they would all have to work together. Calling elections just because you think you might get a majority is bullshit and a waste of time and money.

Drowned Out

reborncareerist wrote:

People apparently cannot come up with more creative criticisms than this. Sad but true. Its telling that people take the assfucking from the US shots but no one provides specific examples of such.

how about softwood? wheat? marijuana decriminalization? Newfoundland's oil?
He has fallen in line with US foreign policy stances at almost every turn, at a time when the US govt has their lowest support EVER! (besides, who cares what the Libs started, we all know they're just as bad...the Cons are supposed to be representing US in the here and now, right?)
and ya....the arctic sovereignty thing was laughable.
He quietly made a lot of our problems go away...

ACCBootlegGoddess

yield6 wrote:

How does everyone here feel about the possibility of proportion representation? And fixed election dates? This i feel would make minority governments the norm if not always, and create an environment in government where they would all have to work together. Calling elections just because you think you might get a majority is bullshit and a waste of time and money.

Who passed legislation for this very thing?? (fixed election dates)...Hmm? YUP Harper!
Who broke his own fuckin law as soon as his approval rating got high enough???
Right again..Harper!!!

Seems like Harper isn't any more trustworthy than anyone else in politics.

Ohh and lets not mention the scandals of the last couple of years that make the conservatives look like the biggest hypocrites EVER! (see their attack ads in the last election and note how they did many of the same things!)

I really wish we weren't having an election right now as nobody running is really fit to lead IMO.

dignin

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

I really wish we weren't having an election right now as nobody running is really fit to lead IMO.

Who would be then? Just off the top of my head...how about Danny Williams?

gleemonex

ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:

Umm ya..thats why I've always felt that the Conservative name is misleading because they are more like the old Canadian Alliance than what we know as the Progressive Conservatives.

That said I fear this will be more an an Anti-Dion vote than it will be a pro Harper one. What many people fail to realize is that Harper couldn't do what he really wanted to do this term because he had the NDP and Liberals to keep him in check (and to a lesser degree the Bloq, because he always bought them off with some unnecessary spending in Quebec to get them to vote their way in the Commons).

I think giving Harper a majority will be a HUGE mistake. I'd be ok with another minority...but give the NDP and Green more seats because we've seen the Liberals are pushovers and the Bloc can be bribed.

I just want to add one little thing, not directed at you, but everyone. Don't be fooled by associating today's Conservative Party with the Progressive Conservatives of the past. Today's Conservative Party under Stephen Harper IS the old Canadian Alliance/Reform Party. Stephen Harper has been aligned with the Reform Party since the 1990s when he worked directly under Preston Manning and he was a key member of the Stockwell Day-led Canadian Alliance.

I agree with your assessment that giving Harper a majority would be a HUGE (!!!) mistake. We need the Liberals/NDP/Bloc to get enough seats to keep Harper in check.

polaris

yield6 wrote:

How does everyone here feel about the possibility of proportion representation? And fixed election dates? This i feel would make minority governments the norm if not always, and create an environment in government where they would all have to work together. Calling elections just because you think you might get a majority is bullshit and a waste of time and money.

i'm definitely in favour of proportional representation and voted for such during our last provincial election but similarily to the liberal campaign now - no one understood it and so it bombed ...

i do think the concept of harper running a steady helm is laughable tho ... he hasn't accomplished anything except cut gst and cut funding to soical programs and the arts ... his mantra of accountability was the biggest hypocrisy yet - the branch overlooking this has actually said under harper - gov't is less accountable than under the liberals ... and we all know his talk on the environment was BS ... everyone could see through that ... if you live in ontario - i don't understand how one can vote conservative ... flaherty screwed us with harris and he's screwing us again ... history is repeating itself ...

although i haven't voted liberal in many moons nor plan to - i do think the liberal plan is best suited for all of canada ... their problem is their leader is weak and no one understands the plan ... they are disorganized ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

i'm definitely in favour of proportional representation and voted for such during our last provincial election but similarily to the liberal campaign now - no one understood it and so it bombed ...

That proportional representation thing was a joke, gee that is what I want, more appointed politicians who answer to their party rather than actual constituents. No matter what system you use people who voted for the loser are going to feel unrepresented, unless there is a switch to a system where every law passed is passed by a referendum.

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

That proportional representation thing was a joke, gee that is what I want, more appointed politicians who answer to their party rather than actual constituents. No matter what system you use people who voted for the loser are going to feel unrepresented, unless there is a switch to a system where every law passed is passed by a referendum.

uhh ... we have a system now that allows 33% of our population to govern the country ... many countries have moved to this electoral system and it best reflects the desires of the population ...

right now the environment is getting no love whatsoever - considering this is a major issue for the majority of canadians ... you can't tell me proportional representation wouldn't addresss that ...

rybes

yield6 wrote:

one issue eh? maybe you should take a look at there platform then...cause im taking a giant leap here in saying that you have not.

yeah I'm going to second that. the whole "one issue" party is nonsense, take the time to educated yourself rather then be a sheep following ridiculous tv commercials etc.

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

uhh ... we have a system now that allows 33% of our population to govern the country ... many countries have moved to this electoral system and it best reflects the desires of the population ...

right now the environment is getting no love whatsoever - considering this is a major issue for the majority of canadians ... you can't tell me proportional representation wouldn't addresss that ...

I don't buy the argument that other countries do it so it must be good. Other countries have a presidential systems that have been successful, hell other coutries have dictatorships and to some people those aren't so bad.

I just don't like the idea that if party X gets 10% of the vote they automatically get 10% of a given pool of seats since you know those seats are going to go to the most loyal croniest party hacks that each party can find, and since those people they have direct constituents they answer to on one but their party leader (and since they are party seats what if the person in them disagrees with his party). We already have enough appointed positions in the federal government why do we need more (ie the senate)? I would much rather see the senate get reformed rather then this type of system of more appointed politicians added on top of it.

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I don't buy the argument that other countries do it so it must be good. Other countries have a presidential systems that have been successful, hell other coutries have dictatorships and to some people those aren't so bad.

I just don't like the idea that if party X gets 10% of the vote they automatically get 10% of a given pool of seats since you know those seats are going to go to the most loyal croniest party hacks that each party can find, and since those people they have direct constituents they answer to on one but their party leader (and since they are party seats what if the person in them disagrees with his party). We already have enough appointed positions in the federal government why do we need more (ie the senate)? I would much rather see the senate get reformed rather then this type of system of more appointed politicians added on top of it.

i'm just saying it's worked effectively in other countries in that there isn't an increase in bureacracy but rather it forces politicians to work together to accomplish things ...

but a party who gets 10% of the vote gets absolutely NO say right now ... how is that a good thing? ... as far as the cronies go - that's how it is now ... it's no different ... it may not be a perfect solution but it's leap years better than what we have now ...

here in ontario - we have a faltering economy partly because of the policies of our federal gov't and they don't really care ... so, while you may fear that your riding may not be heard ... we have an entire province being ignored now ...

Derrick

Personally I just wish pot were legal, or at least wish it was an issue they would discuss.

We need conservative pot smokers.

dignin

Kel Varnsen wrote:

That proportional representation thing was a joke, gee that is what I want, more appointed politicians who answer to their party rather than actual constituents.

you think that your mp is looking out for your peoples interests and not his parties already?? I think your missing the point here.

Kel Varnsen

yield6 wrote:

you think that your mp is looking out for your peoples interests and not his parties already?? I think your missing the point here.

Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day if I think he isn't then I can vote for his opponent in the next election, and he loses his seat. If an MP is appointed to represent a party and sit in on of a pool of bonus seats, then as long as the party is happy with him he has a job. Tell me how I vote someone out in one of those seats? Tell me how someone in one of those seats crosses the floor if they are unhappy with their party?

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Maybe, maybe not, but at the end of the day if I think he isn't then I can vote for his opponent in the next election, and he loses his seat. If an MP is appointed to represent a party and sit in on of a pool of bonus seats, then as long as the party is happy with him he has a job. Tell me how I vote someone out in one of those seats? Tell me how someone in one of those seats crosses the floor if they are unhappy with their party?

elected representatives should NOT be allowed to cross the floor and join other parties ... they should declare themselves independent and immediately ask for a by-election ...

dignin

polaris wrote:

elected representatives should NOT be allowed to cross the floor and join other parties ... they should declare themselves independent and immediately ask for a by-election ...

agreed

rebornFixer

Drowned Out wrote:

how about softwood? wheat? marijuana decriminalization? Newfoundland's oil?
He has fallen in line with US foreign policy stances at almost every turn, at a time when the US govt has their lowest support EVER! (besides, who cares what the Libs started, we all know they're just as bad...the Cons are supposed to be representing US in the here and now, right?)
and ya....the arctic sovereignty thing was laughable.
He quietly made a lot of our problems go away...

I am not convinced that the Liberals woudn't have done the exact same things with regards to softwood, wheat, and oil. Both Liberal and Conservative alike are driven by corporate interests, and neither party would make economic decisions that would threaten Canada's economic position vis a vis the US.
Pot decriminalization. Um, who cares? That's a make or break issue for people? Regardless of what Harper says/does, if you want to smoke weed in this country, you can do so and you probably won't have many problems unless you're a serious dealer.