expat voter

Anything Canada annexes, Canada must be prepared to defend militarily. This principle, very literally, goes with the territory. So maybe annexation of these islands could serve as an excuse to build up the Canadian military, at the expense of social programs. This would fit in with the Harper agenda. It's been a long time since the Royal Canadian Navy has had aircraft carriers! Oh, to be a country with an aircraft carrier again! What a boost in self-esteem!

In comparison, the new western conference currently has 6 of its 8 teams in the bottom half of the league, an illustration of why using winning percentage from inter-conference games makes sense for the final 2 playoff round seedings.

...after the break up of Canada and the USA. Maybe we are transitioning out of the era of nation states. Corporations already have. The over-arching bio-region of course is planetary. I just hope the regions will remain able to support the bios.

I agree that it would be tough to hammer out and get wide agreement upon an alternative justification for exercising authority in the territory now called Canada. "The authority vested in the Crown" - what is the source of that authority? The Medieval European idea of the Divine Right of monarchs to rule on earth? How did the original monarchs come to be? By military prowess and political acumen, by being able to secure and hold power? This is the origin of the authority to rule over the "dominion" of Canada. Some adventurers came over and planted a stick with a piece of fabric on the shore of the continent in the name of these monarchs. Trappers eager for beaver and bible thumpers followed. European technology and alcohol helped subjugate the original population. Skirmishes and negotiations occurred with those other European settlers who rejected monarchy and argued that the right to rule came from the people, at least the wealthy white male ones. Borders were more or less set and new influxes of people were selectively allowed in to labor on and populate the land. But more and more authority was slowly transferred to those who lived in the colony. In 1982 the Constitution was 'patriated,' a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not refer to any Divine Rights, was adopted, and Canadians agreed on how to amend the Constitution without the monarch exercising any real power over the process. Symbolic power perhaps, but no real power. Historically the monarchy was at the "core" of Canada's constitution, but it's arguable to say that it remains so. We've come a long way since Runnymede, and are pretty much a republic in practice, with the GG and the monarchy called on to decide on affairs only in extraordinary circumstances. Had Michaelle Jean said no to Harper's prorogation, and had Harper then gone to QE2, the only right thing for Liz to say would have been "You live with what your GG decided." But there is less mobility up and down social classes if we accept a hereditary elite.

Ok, how do we report spam on this board? That new conference should help Florida ticket sales. Going by current overall rank according to win percentages, the Central Division would be a pretty tough neighborhood too: 2/3-Chicago & Minnesota, 6-Detroit, 7-St Louis, 11-Dallas, 13-Nashville = 6 teams in the top half of the league.

Don't know what to reply to the above, other than: This is getting close to the core of the matter.

No, not "equal." Not even close to "equivalent." The systems are different. Canada's head of state is not the head of its executive, 2 roles that the US president fulfills.

For now, the monarchy functions adequately as a symbol of state, as explained in the opening post. It's not bad to maintain some traditions and customs, for stability's sake. At least until Canadians agree upon something better - and I wish we could. But let's be sure to keep the monarchy at the level of a symbol. The layer of upper crust elitist privilege that you see in the UK is not what most Canadians want. It's illegal in the UK to talk about abolishing the monarchy - the mere idea of such a prohibition in Canada would cause revolt. Harper's love-in with all things "Royal" is childish, and not very true to his populist Reform roots. Demagogic-yes, populist-no.

I am. First, just for the novelty. More importantly, there will be some great rivalries built up, with more directly at stake in conference games. One suggestion to the Board of Governors: In order to give out-of-conference games more meaning and an extra edge, base the final 2 rounds of playoff seeding on winning percentage from inter-conference games. (Rather than total standing points, which will be skewed by play within the conferences.) Now if only concussions would cease...

This is about the new NHL conferences. Are you looking forward to the new format?

By allowing a few large telecom companies to charge high Internet fees, the Conservatives hurt innovation and small/medium size businesses. This is bad for the economy. The Conservatives should know better. http://openmedia.ca/community Big phone and cable companies charge Canadians some of the highest fees in the industrialized world. OpenMedia.ca opposes control of the Internet by non-citizens, be it by governments through surveillance or by big telecom through restricting access to online services. The Conservative government has not yet committed to an open, affordable and citizen-centered Internet- it's OpenMedia.ca 's job to make sure they do.

Save your money and the greenhouse gases, you can lobby for a yes vote by being close-minded from home.

I tried to erase that before it got quoted but you beat me to it. It was being very tongue-in-cheek. (ps Thanks, Smallc. Very civil of you.)

How to get the influence of money out of democratic politics? Who speaks for those with less monetary income? Canada is moving towards becoming a plutocracy, if not one already.

Including the Clarity Act.

Because most Canadians respect the right of self-determination and would prefer to have Quebec stay in Confederation by their own choice rather than by force. Your rhetoric moves Quebec towards independence and Canada towards "civil war." (that's an oxymoron if there ever was one)

I agree with the first paragraph quoted above. But the second one seems to refer to Greens and NDP getting more representation than the BQ. This overlooks the fact that many people in Quebec would cast votes for the NDP and Greens, and that hard-line sovereigntists are most representative of Quebec. But I agree a mechanism is needed to recognize the central historical and current importance of minority francophone Canada.

Now this I agree with, and I like the way you put it. This is a question of unchecked executive power, and especially prime ministerial power, another issue separate from electoral systems. But entirely within the scope of this thread.

I don't think protesters are the non-voters. The above is just a silly unfounded bias. Sounds like a die-hard Conservative voter.

Is this the system that was selected by a citizens' assembly in BC, which failed to reach the high pass mark of 60% in a referendum? How many candidates per electoral district? Would each electoral district have the same number of candidates? Does the Atlantica Party propose this for Canada nationally? What would the voting districts look like? Would it lead to perpetual minority governments, and if so, how would this be dealt with? Just a few questions out of curiosity.

TTM, thanks for that post and the number crunching.

And you still end up with elected members who DO represent your region. I think we can both find examples to support our positions. In either case, it shows that FPTP compromises the "one person one vote" principle.

A Conservative majority elected by a false majority of voters. A Conservative majority that 60% of Canadians DON'T want. A Conservative majority that uses fear of a coalition with the BQ, who win 65% of Quebec's seats with 38% of Quebec votes. A Conservative majority that will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Don't call it a Conservative majority, call it a Republican majority of right-wing idiots governing for the few at the cost of the many.

Who else is tired of these Conservatives and this fractious house? Isn't it time for a change? Canada has had this since 2006. I sense a possible change in government. The Liberals are succeeding in consolidating non-Con votes, leaving the NDP to their core. Assuming Ignatieff performs comparatively well in the TV debates (the big 'if'), in the latter half of the election they will have to concentrate a little on swing ridings in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and the Atlantic, but mostly on Quebec and the GTA. Quebec has always had the power to decide things. I think strong debates by Ignatieff would not only help the Liberals in Quebec, but also the NDP who are gaining in the Outaouais region. Quebec voters, being the shrewdest in the country, instead of BQ/Con will also elect a few more New Democrats, giving us a Lib-NDP coalition, a change in government, and an end to this fractious house led by the Toxic Tories. (I do not count a majority for the Cons as a "change in government" - that's more like an intensification of misery and inequality.) I fantasize somewhat, but I think there is some potential for a change in government. What do you all say?

Another option is the alternative vote, which will be voted on in a referendum in the UK in early May. On one ballot, voters rank their choices. First choices are counted. If no one reaches 50% yet, then the last place candidate is dropped, and the second choices marked on those ballots are added to the first choice votes of all the others. The process continues until a candidate gets 50% + 1 ballot. This would mean only going to the polls once. It would also prevent the scenario that France has faced since the rise of the far-right FN and the fractured left-wing vote. There, the top two parties making it to the second run-off round of voting were the right and the far right, although the numerous parties on the left had a combined total that would have provided a left-wing run-off choice for president.