MightyAC

Do you think you'd be religious today if you weren't told what to believe as a child? I wonder how many people would become religious if they were introduced to it for the first time as adults...my guess is very few.

I don't have a real problem with the appointments, I just expect it. What bothers me is the two faced Tory politics. They try to market themselves as a Canada's "New", accountable and honest government yet they are the same old shit. I fell for it... I really believed that Harper would go after a majority by actually cleaning up Ottawa. Instead it was a smoke screen, a myth that has been busted in less than a year. Delivering the status quo is a far bigger slap in the face when the corner stone of Harper's campaign was accountability.

The number of people voting does not alter the situation I described...those are percentages.

Ridiculous... I hope the player sues the coach for damages for wrongful dismissal. Since when can employers dictate what employees should believe in?

Mike I urge you to learn about some various electoral systems before you continue your mad raving. On one hand you preach democracy and then you contradict yourself by advocating for a winner take all US style system. If you believe in the very basic democratic principles that every vote should be equal and every vote should count regardless of whom it is for or the area of the country it was cast then you’re pushing the wrong system.

Sadly only a minority of Canadians benefit from majority governments, especially when a party is run from the PMO down instead of from the constituents up. Our electoral system rarely produces true majority governments, elected by the majority of voters. The typical majority government only receives 40% of the vote yet wins 60% of the seats and therefore has 100% of the power in Ottawa. . IMO, that is undemocratic, and quite frankly a complete joke. Like Tom Stoppard said “it's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting”. Any government that does not speak for 50% + 1 of Canadians should have to persuade other MPs to support a bill before it can be forced upon us. So to answer the question I believe that under our flawed voting system the majority of Canada benefits from minority governments. Canadians can all thank the traitorous, separatists for doing their part to prevent false red and blue dictatorships. I can only hope that we elect enough consecutive minority governments that a federal leader finally lives up to promises of electoral reform.

Hard to argue with that.

Great beer, great steak and great sex...not necessarily in that order.

That's not necessarily true. Since our winner take all style system simply adds up the number of ridings won it is quite possible that a party could form the government without receiving the most votes. In 1993 the Bloc finished 4th in popular vote yet formed the official opposition. The PCs finished 3rd place with over 2 million votes and only won 2 seats... Every system has it's pros and cons but ours is deeply flawed. Moving to the American system isn't the answer as they use a winner take all system as well. The answer is PR. The question is which form of PR best suits Canada. In my opinion Mixed Member Proportional is the best fit. It balances regional representation with a proportional house of commons.

I also think the senate window dressing move is a joke. If Harper wanted to do things right he should create a citizens assembly to tackle both electoral and senate reform. Their recomendations would then be put to a referendum.

What don't you understand? Under a PR system a ballot cast for a party that does not receive the plurality of votes still helps to create representation. Currently, only those that support the leading party receive any representation.

Our first past the post system on average provides actual representation for only about 40% of people in Canada. Many people know that their party of choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a riding prior to casting their ballot so they have to decide what to do with their single vote. In my riding the NDP and Green party have no chance of winning. For a Green or orange supporter options 1, 3 and 5 yield essentially the same results in my riding. The alternative is voting for a party they don't support hoping it is the lesser of two evils. IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

That's not exactly true. Harper has been abusing the power of his office by forcing MPs to choose the party ahead of their constituents but he still doesn't have 95% power in a minority situation. Anything that requires a vote in parliament requires the help of the opposition.

Our current first past the post system already concentrates power in populated areas PR wouldn't change that. I also believe in more autonomy to the provinces but that is a different issue. Right now we have representative democracy at both the provincial and federal levels. Politicians make important decisions on our behalf. The problem with our first past the post electoral system is the party balance of the government does not even come close to matching how people vote. Are the results of a close vote really valid when the balance of MPs voting isn't correct in the first place? A PR system would fix that. To protect the East and West from being dominated by central Canada I'd like to see an equal senate with 5 to 8 senators from each province and territory. I have been calling for an elected senate as well but I'm not sure if the people should elect the senate or a proportional house should elect senators. We have to keep in mind that the average Canadian barely graps 1/10th of the issues at election time already.

I support PR in the house and an equal (8 senators per prov/territory), elected senate. Then the house would proportionally represent the population and the senate would provide protection for regional interests. Anyway, here is a statement by the Green party on this issue that I happen to agree with. Tindal makes a good point that changes to our system of democracy should be decided upon by the people not the leader of a party that received barely more than 1/3 of the vote.

I have to laugh at that last statement. You think people should shut up about a flawed system or move to an area of the country that has more people with similar political views? That's your solution to our lack of representation?! Nice... What's sad is on average ridings are won with less than majority support.Democracy isn't working in Canada due to our electoral system. On average the first past the post system elects MPs with 40% of the vote gives the party 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. The average riding in Canada has more people that oppose their representative than support him/her. What's worse is the 60% of the people that opposed their MP helped create absolute no representation in Ottawa. Does that sound democratic? Why do you support a system that distorts how Canadians vote so badly? Based on the way Canadians voted last election the NDP was robbed of 21 seats, the Green Party was robbed of 14 seats and the Bloc was rewarded with 19 bonus seats. Shouldn't the amount of representation in Ottawa match how the people actually vote? Shouldn't every vote count, not just winning local votes? Voter turnout is a major problem in Canada but our system promotes apathy. Why would any non-Conservative from Alberta bother heading out to the polls when their vote is absolutely meaningless? The same holds true for Conservatives from Toronto, Montreal and Toronto…last election 400 thousand people from those 3 cities cast votes for the blue team and helped create zero representation. Why would they come out next time? Most democracies in the world have shifted to some form of proportional representation a long time ago. Why can't we? Why should we stick with a flawed system just because that's what the Brits used when they created us? We switched to a better system of measurement surely we can do the same for our electoral system.

More window dressing instead of senate reforms. Maybe they don't want to start the whole process of tinkering with the constitution, maybe they feel the Libs and Bloc would kill it anyway but it still amounts to nothing really. It would be nice to electoral and senate reform debate take place simultaneously with PR and an elected, equal senate added to the constitution at the same time. Oh well at least this story should raise awarness amongst the masses a hair...and that's the first step to making it popular enough to change.

I guess we can thank the traitors from Quebec for something. Considering we are stuck with a craptastic electoral system for now and Red or Blue majorities are very unappealing options at least strong Bloc support in Quebec makes winning a majority very difficult.

The percentage of "losers" was even higher following the January, 2006 election. So-con Harper won the right to govern with a mere 36% of the vote. The losers were the 64% of Canadians who voted for parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens. Not really.. Harper only won a minority government with his 36% of the vote. He doesn't have the power to pass any legislation he sees fit, like a dictator. Our piece of crap electoral system gave Chretien 3 majorities and complete power to pass anything he'd like, despite the fact that he only received 38% to 42% of the vote. The fact that our electoral system so greatly distorts the election results and gives politicians the opportunity for false majorities is why both Harper and Chretien forgot about electoral reform when in a position to benefit.

Would a politician lie? C'mon they all act in the best interest of the country don't they? Paul Martin supported ruducing the power of the PMO before occuping that office, as did Harper. Both increased the strangle hold that office held on the party, with Harping setting new dictatorial records. Steve-O also supported electoral reform and an elected senate prior to being in power.... I guess power corrupts. Black Jack Layton promised that PR would be a necessary condition to gain his support in a minority government...has anyone heard him speak of electoral reform since? He sold his support to Martin in the form of massive spending increases. Politicians all support democracy when they have fewer seats than they deserve...when they get more they have no problem with the undemocratic status quo. The only way to get electoral reform is to make it politically popular and that is starting to happen. Canadians are finally starting to accept that there are more issues than healthcare and education.

Isn't your plan to call Hetero unions 'marriage' and homo marriage 'Civil Unions' seggregation? Here is some advice from my parent's generation...perhaps it is your generation as well...anyway, I find it is still relevant today.

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition". DEFINITION of the word marriage is the issue. You insists the definition of it being a union between one man and one woman had changed several times in the past....therefore I ask you, what other definitions were there aside from that? You made a simple claim. I am asking you a simple question to back up your claim. Don't deflect the question. Here is a link to another post on SSM from this forum that quotes an article on the history of marriage from the week magazine. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=120635 Here are the quotes: http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567 Polygamy was also a legal form of marriage more recently than I had thought. It was legal in the US until 1862, China until 1953 and still exists in most African nations. Marriage was not traditionally 1 man and 1 woman, it has changed drastically throughout history...but then again definitions of words evolve. Hot and cool were at one time opposites, now they can also be synonyms.

I wasn't saying that we're bigger than Jesus or better than Jesus...I was just sayin... I've walked on water, in fact I've cartwheeled on water it was no big deal... I'm sure in time Jesus got better at water skiing too.

That is true. But the United States of America has the greatest level of democracy that is not matched anywhere else in the world. I feel we should move their system. We can't keep letting elites run our country from the back office. Are you being facetious or are you just ignorant?! The winner take all style of US government is nowhere near the greatest level of democracy in the world. Luckily they only have two major parties otherwise the level of distortion and wasted votes would be the same as ours. Are you being ignorant? The US voter has much more say democratically than a Canadian voter. That is just a fact. No, I'm not...Can you read? The US voter does have more say at election time than a Canadian voter...are you aware that there are more than 2 countries in the world? Are you also aware that Winner Take All systems leave many voters unrepresented. The post by mikedavid00 stated that "the United States of America has the greatest level of democracy that is not matched anywhere else in the world"... Do you agree with that statement?

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been: "Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think.... Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc. Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments." I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues. Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us.