Derek 2.0

So you would expect the current "illegitimate" Government to bring about "fair changes" on how we elect future Governments? Furthermore, if it was proven, that the Liberals were involved in election/voter fraud during our last election, you'd be good to go with the same bunch having carte blanche on how we "elect" future Governments?

Who brought up skin color of the President? Actually no, because the Federal Government and its enforcement agencies didn't want to repeat the fiasco that was the Waco siege under the Clinton Administration.......which made the Davidians martyrs and resulted in the deaths and injuries of over 800 people exactly two years later in Oklahoma City. They already have such units.......the "problem" is that said units are inundated by the people that you seek to "punish", and if you start to use the Federal Government to kill "bible thumping rednecks", said "bible thumping rednecks" that just spent the last 14 years killing people and blowing things up overseas will start killing people and blowing things up in the United States. Hence why the US Federal Government isn't going to confront this group in Oregon with violence...........there isn't even a State or Federal law enforcement presence outside the refuge for a reason.

I can see a difference between governance choices made by the Government versus how we elect Governments though. People claimed that the Harper Government was illegitimate because it only had ~39% of the vote, but Trudeau's Government is at the same level of support, does that make his Government illegitimate? It would seem for fairness sake that a referendum is the only way forward in deciding how we elect governments. Again those things are individual policies, like tax rates or other spending policies etc, and though I might disagree with certain policies I'm of the realization that they are the ebb and flow of politics. Changing how we elect governments (more so throw out the current one) is different. Jack Layton's NDP, over a decade ago, proposed a referendum on voting reform. I don't see why it isn't valid to have one today, well being cynical enough to know that the Liberals (like any other party) wouldn't put forth a "reform" that would put them at an electoral disadvantage.

How do you know this? Have you considered said people weren't interested in changing how we vote?

You just knew this was a mater of time:

Sure, but none the less, the NDP's concerns should be investigated.

So the people voted for a new system that they couldn't understand, and we can't have a referendum due to the confusion that would entail.......Experience has shown, when given the option, these same people voted against "voting reform".

How do we/you know that? It could be the tip of the iceberg.

Wait a minute.......I thought you just said most don't understand "voting system reform". Based on pass votes in Ontario and BC, it would seem most in those Provinces don't favor "voting system reform"......or as you suggested, they were easily hoodwinked.

I'm sure a great many people will be awaken if the allegations are proven true.

I see, so why have elections at all then? I mean the majority of Canadians clearly don't understand the complex issues encompassing the running of a first world nation.....why trouble them with it?

Since you're getting personal.........Didn't you support Trudeau and work for Elections Canada in Manitoba?

You are opposed to personal defense with a firearm, and in the case of the OP, the open carry of firearms by private citizens.........do you oppose warmed over rent-a-cops with openly carried guns guarding money that is insured anyways? This isn't the Wild West with bandits robbing stagecoaches you know.....

I think the NDP's Niki Ashton made her case quite clear as to why she feels this to be so.

And I look forward to when the various parties don't promise pie in the sky

I don't feel its my role to explain to Canadians why we need to change our voting system. I clearly stated if it implicated the LPC further.....at such a point, I would think they would lose their social license to alter the voting system. Harper never proposed to alter the way we have voted since Confederation.

Interesting. It would seem to me the way forward is to just decriminalize it, like the NDP proposed.

I would assume with a referendum, the supporters of various types of systems would attempt to "educate" the public on the merits of their proposals....clearly an overall benefit for Canadians. The Liberals have suggested they will have a "conversation" on the topic, but will refuse to hold a referendum....I feel a national referendum encompassing the various options is a must, doubly so if the Liberal Party is guilty of voter/election fraud. Of course, no movement should be undertaken until (if) Elections Canada conducts an investigation on this alleged malfeasance.

Speculation, but what if the alleged fraud went further up in the party? Why not put any changes to the people by a referendum?

Or he just decriminalizes it.......

My thoughts exactly...........

Interesting allegation on the part of the Federal NDP: The NDP go on to say that: That seems a little odd....furthermore: But it should be no surprise that: Of course not..........it's 20156!!! If its found the Liberal party was partaking in dirty tricks during the election, do they have the social license to bring forth wholesale changes as to how we have voted since 1867?

I haven't suggested the banning of anything in regards to this story. Who exactly is going to "put them inside"? Why did the Federal Government back down over the seizure of Bundy's cattle in Nevada in 2014?

I just quoted and cited the law, from the Texas state government website...........disproves your claim. or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

Does anyone question arming armored car personal transporting money?