expat voter

I think the intent of this thread was to discuss degrees of democracy. Where does Canada stand? A lot of the discussion is on the quality of how we elect people for representative democracy, but I agree with you, we also have to look at ways to implement more direct democracy I think we need a way of electing representatives who are more, well, representative of the popular will. In addition, some direct democracy mechanisms are needed. For example, to initiate binding referenda and plebiscites. But there is no democracy if money rules. That's called plutocracy, more and more of what Canada is becoming, especially with the tar sands.

Did someone mention parties punching above their weight?

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) would still have local representatives. (that's why it's called "mixed") A million people scattered across the country with NO representative would have even less representation. In an MMP system,there would be more than one 'PR' representative. So it would make sense that rural voters would have one PR MP, and urban voters another. But actually with FPTP, rural voters have far more clout than urban voters, since urban ridings have far more voters per MP. A principle of democracy is one person one vote. FPTP gives a rural vote more weight than an urban one. Look at the numbers. Your arguments consist of flailing at a straw man. You have to actually look at how MMP would work before criticizing it. Here's but one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

some stats for 2008 election (using data from wikipedia, due to rounding and very small parties, doesn't total 100%/308, but close enough to give an idea): % seats rewarded to party vs. % national total of votes cast for party Con 46.4% of seats won with 37.6% of vote Lib 25% seats won with 26.2% of vote NDP 12% seats won with 18.2% of vote BQ 16% seats won with 10% of vote Grn 0% seats won with 6.8% of vote the number of seats that should have been rewarded to each party using national popular vote, and the number of over or under represented seats they had in the last parliament. Con should have had 116 seats, instead received surplus of 27 seats due to FPTP Lib should have had 81 seats, instead received deficit of 4 seats due to FPTP NDP should have had 56 seats, instead received deficit of 19 seats due to FPTP BQ should have had 31 seats, instead received surplus of 18 seats due to FPTP Grn should have had 21 seats, instead received 0 due to FPTP The government should have consisted of a coalition of 81 Liberal, 56 NDP, and 21 Green MPs, or 158 seats representing 51.2% of the popular vote. Instead we had a near-majority Conservative government that 62.4% of Canadians did NOT want, and now they are trying to scare the country with the spectre of a coalition including a 'separatist' party that only won 38.1% of the vote within Quebec. Again, FPTP rewards concentration of votes, not number of votes. The popular will is not being represented well enough in this system.

In popular vote, ie, in number of Canadians who cast a ballot for the NDP, they are firmly in third place. FPTP rewards concentration of votes, not numbers of votes. Many votes go unrepresented, while others are overrepresented. A partial PR system such as mixed-member proportional (MMP) would address this imbalance.

Thanks for the correction, I've been an expat for a while now. What 8 names do you consider would be good economic managers?

The Liberals have proven themselves to be good economic managers in the past, especially with Paul Martin. Is there anyone of his stature in the party now? Like a Tom Manley, or Frank McKenna? Does Scott Brison fit the bill? Could he? The most important bulk of Canadian voters want a prudently managed economy, with reasonable taxation and sensible government spending that helps the entire public. Here's the Liberal shadow cabinet as listed in wikipedia. Who are the proven or potential prudent managers in here?:

I detest that term.

Ignatieff arrived as an unknown on the Canadian political scene, and remains a bit of a wild card. How would he do in office? This is admittedly a legitimate question. But I prefer this unknown to what I know about Harper Conservatives. Judgement of Ignatieff's wife should be way out on the periphery of all this. Would it be fair for an employer to ask questions about your significant other in order to make a hiring decision?

For all the books he's written, he should be able to communicate some passion for a grander theme that catches voters' imaginations. OK, "Family Pack" and "middle class" etc. He sounds like a policy wonk. How about some perspective? Canadian society is polarizing, the fear among members of the middle class is that if they aren't going to be one of the few who get richer, they are going to become a part of the growing underclass. ("What growing underclass?" Mike and Steve asked in unison.) With basic things like food (how more basic can one get) becoming more expensive, life is getting a lot tougher in the lower echelons of Canadian society. Or do they not count any longer? There used to be a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped up. Now, more and more the spirit seems to be: "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye." Harper's policies are for the already-fortunate. A fitness tax credit? Great. How about a grocery rebate for the guy stacking boxes in a warehouse all day so his kid isn't hungry at school? Axe the per-vote-subsidy? The Conservatives receive the most private donations, and don't care about families who are spending large proportions of their income on rent, food, transit, etc.. So, leave the parties that represent lower income brackets with even less means to be a voice for people who can't afford to donate from their own wallet to politicians. Ignatieff has to distinguish himself by saying he is fighting for a more equitable Canada, while Harper is moving Canadian society towards having a polarized small elite and a growing underclass. (And since he is part of an elite himself, Ignatieff has to let the best-spoken egalitarians in his party have more exposure.)

I thought I read something about being civil with each other in the terms of agreement when I registered on this forum... Calm it down gents! Dudes...chill.

Lots of good debate, but getting back on topic... I was hoping for a discussion on Ignatieff's RHETORIC, ie, how he presents his arguments, his wording, etc. My underlying assumption being: preventing an undesirable Harper majority depends on Ignatieff presenting himself with more sensitivity to how things he says are received by the media and public. So: instead of patronizingly saying "come into the big red tent (and all will be safe my little sheep)", show some respect and say "the Liberal Party asks you for your support in building a more compassionate Canada."

If that's true, then it's truly scary, and all the more reason to fight tooth and nail against a CPC majority.

I'd like this thread to discuss, from whatever viewpoint, the rhetoric of rookie party leader Michael Ignatieff. I'll say up front I'm not a die-hard supporter of any party, but the last thing I want for Canada is a Harper majority. Harper is far more ideological than the *Progressive* Conservative leaders of the past. The heart of his *Conservative* Party is not Tory, it's Reform. So I hope the Liberal leader will crawl yet further out of academia and think about how the words he utters will come into play in politics and the media. (btw, I'm also voting from overseas.) Two points of Ignatieff's rhetoric have been on my mind, re: 1) the "big red tent" and 2) "no coalition" First, lose the line about "coming into the big red tent." It is patronizing, takes voters for granted, plays on fear, and is extremely uninspiring. Every time I hear it, it's almost enough to make me vote for someone else, just out of spite. Don't take Canadians as stupid. They're not like the two less-wise piggies fleeing to the one with the brick house that will protect them from the Big Bad Harper. And be humble, the Liberal Party ain't no solid brick house. Second, (Jeffery Simpson wrote about this also), it's stupid to say "no coalition" when in fact, if Ignatieff does better than expected, he will probably have to forge one. This professor has to learn more about speaking like a politician. media: "Since you're not realistically on track to win a majority, would you try to form a coalition if the Conservatives don't get a majority either?" MI: "No one goes into an election wanting to form a coalition." [Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation.] media: But would you try to gain the support of the NDP and the separatist BQ, in order to seize power as Prime Minister of Canada? MI: [take a deep breath, calm down] "I'm campaigning to earn the right to form a government, with full respect for the rules of Parliament, that a majority of Canadians support." [Period. Full stop. Don't give us a dissertation. Question answered. Repeat this simple sentence a thousand times like a recording if you have to, but don't get all flustered or angry and talking about the ins and outs of parliamentary convention. Smile politely, and warmly if you can.] MI: "Thanks for asking. Next question, please." [edited to add "with full respect for the rules of Parliament" - in contrast to contempt for the rules]

A fundamental cornerstone of democracy is free speech. If one person has something to say, which does not infringe on the rights of others, she should be able to have her say. Would you eliminate the right to run as an independent, unaffiliated with any party? Wild Bill, small parties are a part of democracy, just look at the list of the ones running. And often they are run not by the ignorant and uninformed, but by people who are better informed about certain issues and not following the masses. Innovative ideas almost by definition first seem flaky but then turn out to be bang on target. But they need the chance to grow. The current core of the Conservative party started off as a new party called Reform. The Canadian political landscape was enriched with the birth of the CCF. In polls, the Green Party has hit levels of support on par and over that of the BQ, but because BQ support is concentrated and Green support is spread thinly across the whole country, the regionally focused BQ wields hefty national influence by creating a fractured parliament. Meanwhile the Greens, much more of a national party than the BQ, are left mute. Is Canada one country, or is it a collection of 308 rather arbitrarily drawn districts? Also, one out of a hundred is not a "tiny minority." The Greens are at worst running around 4 in 100 voters, and have performed well in a few ridings, to satisfy your local popularity criterion.