myata

No, I mean there's a plethora of things in which we consider teenagers less than fully capable, here, in Canada. Including the age of concent that's just been bumped up to 16 by this concervative government. Same one that does not want to recognize Khadr as a child soldier, when he was 15. Do you want to apply a different rule to the teenager in combat in Afghanistan? Why? Because what we're doing here, in Canada, is wrong, and we should treat them all as adults? Or because we should hold one law for us, here, and another one - for "them", there?

That's a good point, and it ties up to into the comment about electoral system. If system allowed more choice, voters would be more likely to come out and vote for alternative parties. As of now, any vote cast against the dominant incumbent is as good as lost. Maybe, but it's probably a smaller part of the problem. I received my card with detailed explanation of new rules at least a month before the election. Also, the trend with diminishing voter participation existed in several earlier elections, i.e. before new rules were introduced. Some of the problems can be helped; I strongly believe that there should be an electoral reform with some form of proportional participation, and modernization of the process, for starters. Party politics will have to catch up to the times too. There's no cure for the lifestyle problem, this is something that we'll learn to survive through, or if not, it'll be something that eventually will bring us down, like Romans.

At this time, my life isn't immediately influenced by the guy "in charge" (and I'd like to keep it this way for as long as possible). I can quote a few (in most part, already mentioned) ways in which Harper in charge has had a negative impact on the country and/or somebody in it. - failing to deliver on his own promises of open and transparent government; - ignoring the Kyoto accord and failing to deliver real progress on environment; - blowing crime scare instead of seriously addressing specific issues with crime policies (gangs, gun control); - bland foreign policy in step with that of Bush's administration; - games around death penalty for Canadians abroad; - cancelling previous program on social development (child care, Kelowna accord); - running around his own law on fixed election dates;

Without Duceppe's stellar performance in the debates, which brought the "slips" (btw forgetting to mention the "tough on kids" slip and the "economy" slip?) to the public attention in Quebec the slips would have remainded just that. As to the good of Canada, as said, providence often works in mysterious ways.

Not really, see #1. As a matter of fact I've encountered this same attitude even among my friends. It's supposed to be a sign of coolness and sophistication, but in fact, is a misundertanding of a simple fact, that choice is always made, if not by us, then for us.

While majoritarty system is certainly a factor in the problem, I doubt that it accounts for all of it. I'm all for a reform of electoral system with some form of PR, but I also think that other aspects of the problem should not be forgotten.

I think that we already established that if one wants to be consistent, they have to either agree that child soldiers are still, children, or declare everybody 15 and up an adult. I.e. let them do all the things adults do, and judge them on par with adults. Anything less than that, i.e people who insist that 15 can't have full knowledge of their sexual behaviour, but should bear full responsibility if they're armed and sent to fight in a combat, is a sheer ideological hypocricy.

Heard an interesting though brief discussion of unsatisfactory voter participation record in this, and earlier elections on CBC radio this morning. While terms like apathy, fatigue, mistrust and uselessness were thrown around, it didn't quite strike me as the real core reason(s) of the problem. And of course, our new old PM has also spoken his concern about participation in the elections. So what are the reasons for this phenomena? I can think of a few more specific causes, but not necessarily in the order of actual priority, rather from generality to specifics. - idleness and laziness of population As pointed out by some professor commenting on the discussion, and I agree that it constitutes an important element of the puzzle. It's generally characteristical of societies at the top of their life cycle, about to begin the descent. These societies prefer entertainment to stimulation, avoid taking serious decisions and challenges, if at all possible, and tend worry about their little things emuch more than what's going on around them. I'm pretty sure that it explains, at least in part, the notions of "apathy", "fatigue" and disinterest. Because if somebody spends principal part of their non-working time in entertaining themselves, I see how making a few minutes trip to the polling station, and tasking their brain to make a choice could be an impossibly fatigating task. Same goes for the "I don't care". Because not caring for important choices and/or events is also a symptom of mental laziness. - lack of real choice But not all of it. The lack of meaningful choice in the existing system is a significant deterrent to participation in the electoral process. As in one of the headliness before the election, making a choice "Mr Mean vs cold turkey" does not sound like an interesting exciting undertaking. And in this age we do not like to task ourselves with less than exciting activities even if they represent a civil duty. - backwardness of the electoral process Look at the progress of technology in the last couple of decades. We now have laptops, cellphones, and ubiquitous access to the Net; yet our electoral duty is still putting a cross on a piece of paper. This just does not cut it as something exciting, or even meaningful to do, especially for the younger audience, even if ... etc. - relevance of party politics Our communications have developed to the extent where we can have almost instant response to vertually any question or request. Not in party politics though, that still operates on "twice a year, once in four year" schedule. That just isn't fast enough for the new generations. Same goes for openness and transparency. Availability of information in multiple media and in near real time is still far from reality for most parties, that use the new media is the old fashioned dusty way, i.e. to promote their leadership, or blast opposition, rather than to open and discuss their position.

As Liberals with their weak leadership weren't up to the task, and NDP never stood a chance it was left up to BQ separatists to do the job, for the benefit of all of Canada. Fate works in mysterious ways, or something like that.

Certainly there may be undesirable consequences in a "pure" PR system (i.e. proportion of seats = part of popular vote by the party). That's why it would make sense to start with some kind of a mixed system, e.g. half of the House by majoritary vote, the other - by party's take of the popular vote. Everybody must understand that majoritary system may provide strong government and consistency, but it just isn't made to give us the variety of choice. The only choice it gives is binary: Conservate/Liberal, everything else is pretty much a throw away. If in this time we want more variety in our choices than #1 or #2, the electoral system simply has to be reformed.

I don't know; is it a question (see above), or a statement?

Right; shouldn't he have thought about it before calling this election? E.g actually trying to work with those other parties, as Canadians mandated him to, when they elected him into minority? I wonder what did he think he has accomplished in this mandate (priorities, anyone?) that would have justified him getting a majority mandate this time around?

One (safer streets) isn't consequent from the other (mandatory tough sentences). Fact: Canada already has one of the highest incarceration rates among the developed countries, and also higher violent crime rate than most. Anther fact: US has absolutely the highest rate of prison population per capita, and by far the highest rate of violent crime. "Get tough" strategy doesn't work in practice but it's an easy sell to a less sophisticated part of our electorate, which is looking for simple and fast solutions no matter how complex a problem may be.

Yeah, right. "Bordering on a majority" is a far cry from a landslide. Most estimate don't even go that far. Wouldn't it be more interesting to ask, what's next for the people of this country? More of the same, i.e. nothing. Other than limited tax cuts and miniscule child benefit. No serious action on environment, openness and transparency of the government, more prisons and tougher sentences, which will do nothing to actually reduce crimes on the street, letting go of gun control, partisan attack style politics in the Parliament. All the same things we came to know so well from the previous Parliament. So, why are we having this election? Ask your CPC representative, if they're allowed to speak, of course. If not, we'll have to ask that same question Mr Harper himself.

That'd certainly explain why you never got that important (prerecorded) personal call from the PM! Unless you teleguard is AI trained to receive only concervative calls?

This is certainly correct. With the current majortitary system, splitting the progressive vote is near equivalent to supporting conservatives, i.e. making sure change won't happen (because they don't believe in it). Only broad equal coalition for progress could bring about the electoral change to ensure that we won't have to vote strategically in the future elections, and votes cast outside of main duopoly would still count. Majority party wouldn't be likely to support such change as it would agianst their immediate interests.

Wow, congrats! Pre-recorded, but highly personal message from PM! Now, watch that TV ad, isn't he speaking to you, and you only?

They don't have to. This argument is based not on science, logic, or reason, but on ideology. Ideology that states that whatever is dangerous to us, resisting us, is bound to be bad, and must be punished at all cost. One can't argue "I'm right because I'm" argument. One should choose carefully whether they want to support those who employ it. Because we all should know well by now, where the road with no principles or laws, but with an absolute appointer of right and wrong in their stead would lead to.

For reasons, already stated here, multiple times - ideology based platform, decisions on policies, closeness of government bordering on paranoja, failure to work constructively with elected representatives from other partlies, uninspiring foreign policy - Harper's conservatives should be elected to power. Vote for progressive candidate in your riding to elect democratic coalition or representatives, not dominated by any one party, to advance really crucial at this time agendas: environmental economy that is oriented on the future; and electoral reform that will let us make real choices in the elections.

That's certainly one way to come to understanding of that simple fact, that in this current majoritary system, splitting progressive vote automatically means strenghtening the conservative side. Whatever your heart tells you, that reality won't change, till we change it.

Expecting all good things to happen at once would be - so to say, impractical and unrealistic. There must be a way to start, somewhere. I think of the two previously mentioned agendas as maybe the most important ones in our time. One is laying foundations for the future prosperity of the country; the other ensures long term viability of its democracy. It's unlikely that either can be successfully implemented by any one party, whether in majority government or not.

Only to point out that on the scale of this country it is not that small a deal. Same buyout in the US would amout to $ 250 billions (with 10 times population) more than a third of their recently approved bailout package. I do disapprove the measure at this time, will have to find out more information about it.

Repost from another thread as it's more fitting this topic Dion is not a strong charismatic leader to unite progressive vote, and Liberals can only dream of a majority at this point in their history. However, rather than see it as a problem, I'd like to welcome this state of affairs as an opportunity for a broad democratic change in the country. A Liberal majority government, if and when it's elected, will follow its own agenda, and may not be all that inclined to consider the views of the other parties representing progressive electorate. Electing a coalition where each party is in minority, would be more beneficial for the dialog and sharing of ideas. Of which two agendas are really crucial at this point of time: - one is reconciling the economy and the environment. Not as a dogma, and not only for environment's own sake (important as it is for our posterity), but most importantly, for future well being of this country. The oil bonanza won't last forever (may not even last that long), and when all is over, everybody else had worked hard to adjust their economies, lifestyles, etc to the realities of carbon tight future, while we were busy reaping benefits (and spending them) guess who would be hardest hit. Don't guess though, just look at those old fisheries towns, coal mining towns, forestry towns, etc with 30% of population on employment assistance. Except Ontario and Quebec can't go on employment assistance, that would be a catastrophe, and probably would spell the end of the country as we know it. The time to start the change (not to force it, nor rush it - but to start, for serious and in earnest) is now, and Harper won't do it because he doesn't believe the problem exists, and he loaths to do anything he doesn't believe in. - two is the electoral reform: to make elections more democratic; to add meaning to the choice; there must be a change in our electoral system that will allow some form of representation for the "lost vote". This is almost impossible, near suicidal task for any majority government. It can only be accomplished by a broad democratic coalition for progress. So, we can vote for progress, which isn't synonimous with voting for Dion, or the Liberals, and make change happen. Supporting Harper would take us away from at least the second goal, even if eventually leading to another Liberal majority.

I agree with most of that assessment. Dion is not a strong charismatic leader to unite progressive vote, and Liberals can only dream of a majority at this point in their history. However, rather than see it as a problem, I'd like to welcome this state of affairs as an opportunity for a broad democratic change in the country. A Liberal majority government, if and when it's elected, will follow its own agenda, and may not be all that inclined to consider the views of the other parties representing progressive electorate. Electing a coalition where each party is in minority, would be greatly more beneficial for the dialog and sharing of ideas. Of which two agendas are crucial: - one is reconciling the economy and the environment. Not as a dogma, and not only for environment's own sake (important as it is for our posterity), but most importantly, for future well being of this country. The oil bonanza won't last forever (may not even last that long), and when all is over, everybody else had worked hard to adjust their economies, lifestyles, etc to the realities of carbon tight future, while we were busy reaping benefits (and spending them) guess who would be hardest hit. Don't guess though, just look at those old fisheries towns, coal mining towns, forestry towns, etc with 30% of population on employment assistance. Except Ontario and Quebec can't go on employment assistance, that would be a catastrophe, and probably would spell the end of the country as we know it. The time to start the change (not to force it, nor rush it - but to start, for serious and in earnest) is now, and Harper won't do it because he doesn't believe the problem exists, and he loaths to do anything he doesn't believe in. - electoral reform: to make elections more democratic; to add meaning to the choice; there must be a change in our electoral system that will allow some form of representation for the "lost vote". This is almost impossible, near suicidal task for any majority government. It can only be accomplished by a broad democratic coalition for progress. So, we can vote for progress, which isn't synonimous with voting for Dion, or the Liberals, and make change happen. Supporting Harper would take us away from at least the second goal, even if eventually leading to another Liberal majority.

Well, for some people, the international law exists only as far as it's justifying their actions. When it suits, it's brought up as a pack of card (child soldiers in Africa), when doesn't - shuffled back and forgotten. That's how we like to instruct other, lesser people on the paths of democracy and humanism.