Mad_Michael

Who won the 1964 and 1968 elections?

That's semantic. The motion wouldn't be defeated if the tiny coalition party didn't demand it. Coalition governments mean rule by the smallest minorities. Poprortional rep systems make coalitions the rule, not an exception. Spin all you like. We don't have proportional rep or the 10 party coalitions that proportional rep leads to. Thus, our government functions. Why don't you reply to the argument at hand rather than just ignoring it and changing the subject? The argument you give is just a repeat of crap already posted. Proportional rep systems are designed to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out. That makes proportional rep systems anti-democratic by definition. None whatsoever. All I see is a government trying to engineer the system to protect their own against my desire to see the bums thown out of office and some people arguing that less is more and up is down. Not if a majority of the constituents want this bum thrown out of office. If he's popular with some other voters, he can run in that riding in the next election. No it does not. Fairness is pure political spin and entirely in the eye of the beholder. Fact is, it makes politicans less accountable to the electorate that ends the discussion in my book. If the politicians like it, that should be your first clue that it screws you.

I don't believe that 'race' is a valid category or classification. It is a sociocultural construct, not a scientific one.

I don't understand your opposition to coalitions. I also don't understand how you think a party can rule with 5%.Let's say the governing party is elected with 35% of the vote. When trying to pass bills they obviously have to receive support from 1 or more opposition parties. Popular bills pass easily, less popular bills take compromise or do not pass....a lot like our what occurs in a minority government situation. The largest party in an election gets 45% of the seats in an election. They need a coalition partner. One party has 5% of the seats. That one little party with 5% calls the shots as the terms of their support. If you don't give them what they want, your 45% party government will fall. This is how small parties with marginal support can dominate the political agenda with their narrow interests. And it is to be noted that an increase in the number of small parties and frequency of coalition governments has occured in every jurisdiction to adopt any form of 'proportional rep'. Thus, the rule of tiny marginal parties becomes the norm. Like I said, 40% 'majority' governments may be less than ideal, but 5% parties ruling parliament through coalition blackmail is worse. All votes are public and politicians must still face the electorate every 4 years. The opposition will hang itself if it refuses to pass popular bills. You obviously haven't studied the recent history of failed reform policies in European coalition governments. If any proposed policy reforms require a 'cutback', coalition governments find it almost impossible to do it. Reform is only possible where no 'cutback' is promised. The structure of coalition governments usually makes it so that at least one of the coalition partners is dependent upon the constituency that is dependent upon opposing that particular cutback. There is always a coalition partner available to defend every pig at the trough. The voters can get annoyed at this, but it doesn't matter much. The same parties get back into power and make the same deals with the same coalition partners and re-construct the same government even though the electorate rejected the last one. Absolutely nothing. That's what they do every day. We call it government. After four or five years if we don't like their rule, we throw the bums out. Under our present system, their ability to cobble a coalition and sneak back into power against the public's wishes is curtailed - quite unlike proportional rep systems. Please explain how MMP would give politicians job security. I hate McGuinty's government and most particularly, some two-faced lying cabinet minister in my own riding. In the next election, all my neighbours get together and we all plan to vote against the Liberal cabinet minister who represents our riding. Sure enough, we send him to defeat - replaced by some nameless Tory or NDPer or whatever. So what happens now? That defeated Liberal cabinet minister will likely get put back into the Legislature appointed by the Liberal party 'list' from the proportional rep system. Thus, the will of the people to throw that particular bum out can easily be thwarted by the party elites. That's why they like it so much and I hate it. I think it ought to be a good rule that no one may sit in Parliament without successfully winning an election in which their name is on the ballot. Letting political parties appoint 'lists' of party toadies to sit in the Legislature - at the will of the party's choice - is a travesity of the principle of democracy.

Yes, a typical turf war - fought for everyone's interest save that of Canada. Thankfully we got rid of the three-branch service game for the same reason. Is it time to be rid of the Coast Guard? Canada is a relatively small country. We don't need separate services for everything. No reason in the world that the Navy can't do what we expect the Coast Guard to do. And if the Coast Guard is unionised, that is a double-bonus in getting rid of it.

No, I'll ignore it since it doesn't have much to do with the thread discussion. The thread topic is about Blair's appointment, and to a lesser extent, myata's attempt to blame all problems in the Middle East upon the western powers. My comments about 'no sympathy' for Israel is in part a reply to myata's arguments that I'm some toady apologist for Israel, neocons, USA or Britain. But you knew all that since you read the whole thread from the beginning...

The fact that you had to dig deeper beyond the contemporary timeframes of the others suggests this phenomena is a less common one. Tricky Dick was VP under Eisenhower and he did become elected as President, though not sequentially.

Huh? The adjective 'Orwellian' doesn't mean "totalitarian" or "authoritarian". No new word is needed or used to describe authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. The term 'Orwellian' almost always refers the application of double-speak. For example... I was just checking out one of my favourite blogs today.... Washington Note As you can see, this rather well respected American journalist and foreign policy expert uses the term 'Orwellian' as exactly equal to the meaning of 'double-speak'. Yes, I can't imagine anyone doubting this. One never has to look very far to find proponents of authoritarianism on either the left or right. And I'm not sure if Orwell has 'regretted' his earlier enthusiasm in Spain. Perhaps you might want to reference the official website of the Libertarian Party? That might be a bit more 'reputable' source of the views of American Libertarianism would it not? You will find 'freedom of capital' to be a major theme over there. Whom are you referring to? Orwell?

Not entirely. Like with the Dutch, there is no actual law that 'legalises' marijuana possession in Holland. Decriminalisation in many cases essentially consists of a political decision not to enforce the existing law. This has been the case in Toronto for the last few years (until our Tory Government decided that legislating morality is a high priority - no surprise there).

Is this colourful rant addressed to anyone, or any topic? Or is it just random?

Well, that and Canadians living there. As it happens, wehave those already.... That being said, defense college investigations have determined that at very least Canada needs 24 warships. Currently we have 16 frigates and destroyers. The proposed patrol ships are not warships. What we need are new frigates. Yes, new/more frigates would be nice. But I still think maintaining permanent ice-breaking capacity up in the Arctic is critically important to the maintenance of the Canadian claim. The USA steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that claim. Canada has to push our claim hard or it is no claim at all.

I have always wondered at people's need to attack other people's need to have a complete story that they can grasp from beginning to end. I don't presume to judge their reasonings or justifications for same. I just observe that they do it. Are you referring to the need of some people to attack religion and/or religious faith? If so, I'm pretty sure it will never end. Such crude boors seem to get off on it.

Religion doesn't oppress reason. It may try, but it rarely succeeds. You won't. It is apparently part of human nature that we really like having diversity of opinions - especially in matters of faith. Such differences of opinion are generally irreconcilable. Probably around the time we stop killing people in the name of peace.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie! Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science. Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

Yes, this does seem rather common phenomena. I could add a dozen more examples drawn from Provincial politics or earlier decades. That being said, do you think it is about to happen to Gordon Brown? I do.

God forbid that anyone actually have a position to stand behind. Partisan positions are quite common - and valid opinions. Everyone is entitled to one. I object when they are presented as 'fair and balanced' assessments of the situation when it is bloody obvious they are not (as was the clear case in this thread). Partisans of Israel or Palestine are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox News and have little to offer any substantive discussion of the topic other than vitrol or spin.

I'd much prefer to see a contract for the purchase of heavy-duty icebreakers. Nothing less than this can stand for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. New patrol boats are nice, but they are just campaign candy.

You can quibble all you want about about the 'incremental value' of one vote all day long. But the question is, when it comes to proportional representation, how do you address the institutionalisation of backroom coalition deals where the smallest parties hold the power? As I noted above, rule by 40% may be a travesty, but rule by 5% is definitely worse. And what about the process by which coalition governments are essentially incapable of cutting anything? And how do you reconcile the fact that proportional rep systems protect the jobs of politicians the electorate tries hard to vote out of office? I want responsibility in Parliament. I cherish the ability to vote them out of office. Proportional rep systems prevent this and give job security to politicans.

This is just not true. Israel, South Africa and N.Ireland (amongst other places) provide examples of terrorism used successfully to achieve a political goal. One may not like terrorism, but how can you deny the successful application of terrorism? Indeed, it is arguable that the USA and Britain used 'terrorism' in WWII in their infamous 'firebombing' raids with the expressed goal of maximum civilian casualties. Terrorism as a tactic has been used many times, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

I'll take your comment as ill-informed rather than malicious.The Irgun were, by some definition, terrorists. They attacked the King David Hotel (after telephoning a warning to the Brits to "scram"). The Brits' response was "we don't take orders from Jews". The Haganah, or regular forces, were in no way terrorists. They in fact forced the Irgun to lay down their arms when the Haganah's successors, the Labor Party, took power in 1948. All negotiations were through the Haganah. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, they had the power to enter into binding deals and, by disarming the Irgun, ensuuring that the deals would be kept. The Muslim Brotherhood has no such ability or intention. "were, by some definition, terrorists"... by British legal standards certainly. I don't have figures offhand as to how many were imprisoned for 'terrorist' charges, but there are quite a few (Menachim Begin comes to mind immediately as one who served time in British jail for 'terrorist' activities - he isn't the only one). Spin all you like to defend them, the bottom line is that some Jewish groups did engage in terrorism during the 1940's. And the Western powers had no substantive difficulty in subsequently 'engaging' with Israel or Jewish groups. Speaking of which, we also have the example of South Africa with the ANC. Many of the ANC leadership were jailed for terrorism, including Mandela. Yet again, western countries had no substantive or moral difficulty 'engaging' with post-apartied South Africa. And we also have the example of Britain (amongst others) acknowledging and 'engaging' with the IRA, another noted and unapolegetic terrorist organisation. Remarkably, all of these examples involves 'engaging' with people/organisations with a known history of terrorist violence. And in all cases, remarkable and mutually beneficial results have accrued over time. Engagement of and in itself is beneficial to the west. The process of engagement of and in itself increases the possibility of peaceful resolution of differences. Any who oppose this general and non-commital policy of 'engagement' can only be accused of wanting a war with Islam.

You really ought to get a life sometime... just sayin'.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Apparently Canadians want to import/buy lots of American guns. Why is this an American problem? Looks more like a Canadian problem to me. Too many Canadians want to kill people.

Good gosh. If you think electing Presidents is as fun as electing a Senate, move the USA. Canada is a wonderful country. Turning it into the USA is not a good plan.

Spoken like a truly biased partisan. As noted above, Israel will find no sympathy from me. I used to sympathise with the Israeli position - up until 1981. Since that time, Israel has moved over to the 'aggressor' club and is not worhty of sympathy. They are warmongers no different than any they presume to crtique.

Only 5th place? That's insulting! Canada can do better than that! We ought to be first place since we grow some of the very best stuff on the planet these days.