-TSS-

You can use the same logic on the UK-elections as well even though there the Tories were the governing party and they got the majority. They didn't win but the opposition Labour lost because the people didn't trust Miliband. He just was not the mettle it takes to be PM of a major country like the UK and the voters knew that and therefore gave Cameron the benefit of the doubt as a lesser evil.

Four years? I seem to remember something about Canada changing its electoral-law to introduce fix-term parliaments but was the term shortened to four years?

In Germany and in New Zealand they have the MMP-system. The problem with it is that it creates two tiers of MP's. Those who fail to get elected from the local lists often sneak in from the party-lists. Needless to say really that those who get elected from the local lists never stop repeating how they have a real mandate.

Until now you have had a situation that if there are elections today and the opposition wins the majority= The opposition leader becomes PM tomorrow. No more in the PR. There will be long negotiations of a coaltion-government with all the horse-trading attached.

Look how New Zealand did it and do exactly the opposite. Nobody really likes the system nowadays in NZ but there is no return to FPTP.

Btw, as there are various time-zones in Canada the eastern provinces close their polls earlier than the western ones, right? If so do they start publishing the results of the eastern provinces while the voting is still going on in the west?

It is clear that 10 years is the maximum time for one guy to be PM. People get tired in that time and if a party wants to remain in power for more than 10 years they must change the leader and in that case the PM. However, that tactic didn't work out too well for the Conservatives in 1993 when they were annihilated. Isn't Harper already one of the longest-serving PM's in the history together with Trudeau, Chretien and Mulroney?

It seems you are heading for a change of government. How is it in Canada exactly: Is it a typical situation of getting fed up with the same party in power for quite a long time, almost ten years, and therefore yearning for a change or is there an economic downturn and increased unemployment which has caused the popularity of the Conservatives to plummet?

Our PM is a quisling of the worst kind. For him the interests of the EU come before the interests of Finland.

I think the alternative to Harper is even worse so better stick with him but it is your choice in Canada.

It is getting totally unsustainable. Europe as we know it is collapsing. Finland is receiving 500 asylum seekers every day. Germany and Sweden many more times than that of course. I have made a decision to move out from the capital-area where I currently live while there still might be some fools who will pay for the flat what I'm gonna ask and I'm myself gonna move into the sticks.

Immigration into Finland has certainly had a negative effect, especially immigration from the third world countries. Having said that, no other single immigrant has cost us so much and caused as much harm as a certain Canadian IT-boss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop

There's something profoundly unhealthy about a system where 20 months before the election all the candidates are already declaring their candidacies and probably for a reason as if they didn't they would be lagging behind decisively. In elections such as the 2016 election will be this is especially the case because there is certainly going to be a new president.

The next US president is certainly gonna be a Republican, who is he or she is anybody's guess, and the escalation will get worse. Depending on one's point of view Obama has been an indecisive chickenshit or a wise man not unnecessarily escalating the conflict. I'm afraid his Republican successor will be different.

Sweden and Finland! Two of most cosiest places on the planet. You can't seriously claim that the statistics wouldn't paint the ethnics in a better light. As I've said before, I don't know the Canadian system .

Since, as I understand, you are some sort of boss of this forum I would have expected a bit more rationale and analysing approach than just the usual ignorants dislike foreigners-statement. I don't know about Canada but I could dig up dozens different examples why immigration is bad for Finland just for 2015 and we are stil in March.

If you dislike ***** why is that branded as being extreme right-wing? What is right-wing about it? I thought this division of politics into left and right is mainly about economics. The nazis are called nazis because they were national socialists. The political spectrum is not a straight line but more fittinly like a horse-shoe where the extremes are closer to each other than either of them are to the centre.

I don't know about the Canadian law but in Finland you can be prosecuted if you have sex with underaged people even if the crime happens overseas, in Thailand for example. How can they prove such a crime has taken place is beyond my comprehension.

I'm certain that nowhere else politicians are as naive and gullible as in Finland, especially the left-wing politicians. Naivety and gullibility can be very harmful when dealing with very dangerous people. But we have to look in the mirror; it's us ourselves who have elected those silly muppets to decision-making positions. I think life has been too fluffy for too long for too many people. The sense of real world disappears.

In Denmark the Danish citizens who return after having fought for ISIS are locked up and prosecuted for treason ( I think it is needless to explain who these "Danish citizens" are) when as in Finland our MP's express their worry for reintegrating the poor lost souls returning from the horrors of war and are eager to promote their reintegration into society and are asking about who is going to pay for the possible needed treatment caused by the war. Which approach do you prefer?

It would be interesting to see the reaction of all these youngsters worldwide who are flocking to join the ISIS when it finally dawns on them that the whole ISIS is an American creation in order to destabilise the region even more than it already is.

Some people seem to think that if we only get rid of Putler then it's all going to be happy democracy in Russia. I'm sure that a lot of people thought when Lenin died that no way it is possible that anyone even worse or crueler than him could take his place.

I was gobsmacked to find out that in major global city like London the police are unarmed and they are only now considering allowing the police to carry arms. How naive can you get? The usual reason, or excuse more likely, to defend an unarmed police is that arming them leads to overall brutality in society as when the police are armed so will be the criminals too. Ok, just someone please explain what stops the criminals from being armed when the police are unarmed?

Jeb Bush and he will win the election.

I must say I'm a bit surprised that in supposedly developed countries such as Britain they still carry out censuses by delivering forms to the population to fill out. It goes without saying that the results of such censuses are totally inaccurate especially in a country like Britain where many people want to remain below the radar so to speak.