TTM

Longing for the more peaceful days of the 1940's?

Canada, in the 90's. On a provincial level, Saskatchewan, during the same period. I'm sure other examples can be found.

Sounds like an argument for communism! Concentration fuels innovation. While it is not necessarily true that innovation cannot occur without concentration of resources, be they in the form of wealth, education, opportunity, etc (resources are not limited to the stuff you dig out of the ground), it certainly makes the process much more efficient. In a world of scarce resources, some concentration can "make the pie bigger" and therefore "raise all boats" at a much faster rate than some theoretical egalitarian baseline may be more true, but doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

I don't know...four posts up is pretty stupid

End of the voter subsidy kills BQ and the Liberals, forcing the left to unite under the sole remaining party, thereby reestablishing left-wing dominance in government. That would be ironic.

Completely unbiased reporting, like any search for perfection is unattainable. I wonder how much of the bias you hear comes not from the fact that the reporting is left of center, but from the fact that you are right of center? Assuming the CBC is biased left, I could argue that bias performs a vital service. I can only speak to my local situation, but if CBC is biased left, then than means the remaining Canadian TV stations are biased right, and all the major local talk radio stations and newspapers are biased right. Without CBC, I'm left with nothing but a wall of right wing media. I will have no choice but to lurk on political forums complaining about how the right-wing MSM is out to distort the political discourse in the country. I will make sure to use lots of ALLCAPS and exclaimations!!!!!

There are two scenarios I see for the Liberals, and it depends on what the other parties do. If the NDP and Conservatives become more polarised over time, then there is room for the Liberals to rebuild as a party of the center--fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However this would likely be a long term process (at least two election cycles, probably more), and it would require getting over serious branding issues in the west and in Quebec. The other possibility is that the other two parties crowd them out of the center. Once the reality of this sinks in, there will either be a slow disintegration of the party (much like the Liberals in Sask.) or a formal merger with the NDP. The right of the party will migrate over to the Conservatives. I think its likely, especially with a merger, that the left wing of the NDP migrate out of the party and merge with/take over the Greens. Assuming the BQ are done as a major force in Quebec, at the end of the day we will see a similar situation to before 1993, but instead of PC, Lib., NDP it would be Cons., NDP(/Lib party), Green. Of course there is a very good chance we end up with just the Cons. and NDP. As much as a two party system makes things easier, it is polarising and restrictive on choice, and I hope we don't end up with such a system. I hope third (and even fourth) parties continue to play a roll in the system (Bloc excepted).

Cons: 141 NDP: 81 Lib: 59 BQ: 24 Green: 2 Ind: 1 Same as other thread.

And the yardstick of democracy keeps moving, and people with your attitude just cheer. The idea that our representatives actually represent us is for most of us a joke, party policy is decided by leaders advisers rather than its members, the government willfully ignores the rights of Parliament, and the consolidation of power in the PMO is now such that even cabinet ministers are out of the loop half the time. We have little enough voice in the system as it is. But the trains run on time.

First let me say that in no way do I think Harper is going to become a dictator. I just hate this line of reasoning with a passion. Every democratically elected person who did become a dictator first gradually consolidated power under the justification that they were the only one who could "make the trains run on time." Its a dangerous line of reason, and you should get in the habit of rejecting it out of hand.

Glad to help!

Yes, philosophy (metaphysics) would probably be the top of my list.

Yeah, modern farms are multi-million dollar enterprises. They have to be just to get to the point where they are profitable.

I took a lot of physics, but little of the "fun" stuff (more practical). Psychology, sociology, philosophy, history are what I would be most interested in.

I have a university degree in engineering. I would like nothing better, if I had the time and money, then to go back and take some "artsie" courses. The world is a fascinating place, and education should be a goal in itself.

As often as there is some idiot who equates a degree with intelligence, on the other side there is insecurity that the opposite might be true. Both are fools. As far as xenophobia, the thing that shocks me most every time I return home, is the level of casual racism. Almost any casual conversation, carried on long enough, will provide an example. It is that more than anything else that I object to in rural/oilpatch thinking.

Only if the only goal of education is getting a job.

Very true. However on the converse, I find that whenever I try to discuss politics with someone who is aware of the education difference, the conversation quickly descends into "just because you have some fancy edification, doesn't make you right" I'll take poverty over xenophobia any day

That to me sounds like frustration on your part. Progressives have a choice of at least three parties, while what option does your average right wing voter have? Your side made the "Deal with the Devil" and sacrificed choice for power.

Notice how I used the term "stereotypical". I would never call rural people stupid. On average less educated, less exposed to other cultures and ideas and therefor more insular and xenophobic, sure, but not stupid. I spent the ages of 3 to 18 growing up on a farm a couple of miles outside a small town (pop. ~300) near the Alberta border, in the middle of the Saskatchewan oil patch. The nearest "city" was a larger town of ~4,000, half an hour away. Saskatoon was the nearest major population center, 2 hours away. My understanding of rural attitudes comes from being immersed in them for 15 years, and I get a refresher every time I return to visit (several times a year).

He didn't run a particularly bad campaign, it just wasn't a particularly good campaign either, and in my opinion the wrong campaign. He was doing fine until they started to panic shortly after the debates. Mostly he just happened to be the leader in power when the inevitable took place, and Quebec turned to the NDP as its federal choice. The right campaign in my opinion would have been to challenge the Conservatives directly on the economy, and campaigning for the Red Tory vote, rather than trying to drain the NDP, which failed last time too. Had they done that I think that the support they bled to the NDP during this surge would have been at least partially made up by draining support from the Conservatives, rather than the collapse of their party to its urban Toronto base. But who knows.

Youth in general tend left. Those who seek higher education (ignoring business colleges) tend left. I don't know what else you would expect to find at a university. We were talking about the stereotypical uneducated rural/oilpatch voter. In Alberta they vote overwhelmingly provincially PC and federally Conservative. They will, for the most part, never vote for anything to the left of the Conservatives, regardless of what the party does.

I assume you are talking about Alberta, since you've defined Alberta provincial politics.

81, per other thread. Wouldn't be surprised with 20 seats either way.

You are aware there are more choices that FPTP and proportional, right? Myself, I prefer mixed proportional, with ~2/3 of candidates from ridings, ~1/3 from lists. Voters choose seperately both a local candidate and a party. This way if they don't like the local candidate, they can vote for one they do like, but still lend their vote to the party of their choice. It is obviously still in the parties interest to field good candidates, and voters can't whine if they elect a crap candidate. Strategic voting is undesirable, but I can't see how that is a knock against alternate forms of voting since it is probably most prevalent under FPTP