Black Dog

The problem is marriage is a brand. People have associations and expectations of "marriage" that just isn't conveyed by "civil union". Not quite the same, is it? In fact, given that the majority of marriages are not religious (even here in conservative Alberta, civil ceremonies outnumber church weddings), it's clear that marriage (yes, marriage) is important to more than just churchy types. I don't see how the current arrangement (marriages for all, with religious institutions having the option to "opt out") poses a problem for anyone.

Ah yes. It's the opposition who's responsible for the failures of the majority party. Thanks for proving YankAbroad's point.

I don't think it would be any party's interest to screw rural voters because they don't have enough influence. That's just bad politics. But why do rural voters deserve more representation than anyone else? Why are their needs more important than those of urban voters? Also, I think the results of this election show your fears are groundless, even when viewed through the lense of PR. If we had PR, the Tories would still dominate the rural regions and would still lead a minority government. But rural and urban voters would both have representation that reflected the level of support for the parties (so urban Conservatives and rural Liberals/NDs wold actually have a say). You're wrong. PR doesn't create regional blocs. It eliminates them. Again, look at the election results and look at the numbers if we had PR. More urban and Atlantic Conservative MPs. More rural Liberal/ND MPs. And far less representation for a regional party like the BQ. Support for most political parties is spread out across the country, but because of FPTP, we are left with the apperance of regional blocs. PR would correct that problem, not make it worse.

I don't buy the argument that minority government = legislative paralysis. After all, there's more than 70 western nations using some form of PR, yet things still get done. Plus, minority governments come with built in checks and balances in the form of the other parties and ultimately, the electorate.

I don't see how a system that ignores the votes of some rural voters can be said to be fair either, but whatever. The way I see it, PR would most likely lead to more minority governments, which gives individual MPS more sway. That's the short answer. The long answer would be, PR is not unfair to rual voters: being a rural voter in an urbanized country is screwing them, not the the system which treats all voters equally. Obviously, it's not a desirable result for rural communities to only have 20 per cent of the representation in parliment, but I don't see how artificially inflating their influence at the expense of other voters is a better solution.

Good article here: How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?

I think we should appoint a dictator for life. That way we won't have to bother with elections and compromise and can just focus on getting things done. In 2004, the Liberal got 22 per cent of the vote. In 2000, 20 per cent. In 1997, 24. In 1993, 25 per cent. With the exception of their 13 per cent showing in 1988, the Liberals have held strong at 20 to 25 per cent support in Alberta since Diefenbaker. So 15.3 per cent is not "high for them". It's low.

Did you read the second link? That theme is being repeated quite a bit: it seems the average Palestinian voter is tired of Fatah's corruption and indolence and is willing to give the alternative a shot, despite its radical leanings. We just went through a similar housecleaning in Canada. I wonder, given Hamas's adherence to the year long ceasefire with Israel and its toned-down rhtoric during the campaign, if ths isn't the start of a new political dimension to resistance in the vein of Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Justcrowing: The first sentence of your linked "report" states: Gee, that sounds like a scholarly, scientific opinion. Sadly, it goes downhill from there.

Don't forget "Curveball". What's really amazing about these allegations is how Saddam was able to develop WMD without any active WMD programs or facilities. The man was either a diabolical genius of supervillianesque proportions or this story is total B.S. Hmmm....

But that's perfectly fair. What, should places with less population get more say? Under PR, a rural voter's vote is worth the same as that of an urbanite and their influence in government will be directly in proportion to their prescense in the country. Their vote is still worth something because their chances of sending someone to Parliment that represents their views are much greater. Don't bother bringing arguments form the SSM thread here: it's apples and oranges. You can have both a electoral system that is fair to all voters and a political system that protects minorities. Small communities and rural areas will still send people to Parliment to represent their interests, in numbers that reflect their population. What could be more fair?

I guess, geologically speaking, the 18th Century can be considered "modern" times. But that's when the concept of democracy as we know it today orginated. Nonsense. I simply said that a true democracy moderates majority rule. Without that, you'd have a tyrrany of the majority. That's not democracy. Yank Abroad made a good point on this, I'll just follow up by saying people are mortal and error prone, motivated as much by greed, self-interest, paranoia, xenophobia, superstision, emotion and fear as rationality. Acknowledging that is not elitist, because I'm not saying i or anyone else is any better.

To the first: Germany (again) has a system whereby local candidates and party list candidates must be nominated either by vote of all party members or by vote of convention delegates who in turn have been chosen by vote of all party members. No appointed candidates. No "crony list" appointed by the executive. A simple minumum threshold (say, 5 per cent) would address that. This isn't about getting the Green Party seats. It's about ensuring fairness in our voting system. If the Green party example doesn't turn your crank, how about the plight of the the 400,000-plus Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver who failed to elect a single MP? How can a system where by a candidate elected by a minoirty of voters is suppossed to represent 100 per cent of all people in the riding be considered a "good system"? (let me guess: you're an Albertan?)

That's simple majoritarianism, not democracy. In a real democracy, the rule of the majority is moderated by the recognition of minority rights (based on the principle of equality under the law).

Minitants asked to form new government Gee I thought democracy in the Middle East was a god thing. Maybe now some folks will stopequating elections with democracy. Also: Hamas election was a vote against corruption Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I wonder if Hamas asked voters to Stand Up for Palestine....

Under FPTP, winning one riding is a lot to ask. The problem is the FPTP system screws parties that enjoy healthy levels of support because not all votes are equal. In the last election, for example (2004), the Bloc gained an average of one seat in Parliament for every 31,000 votes while the NDP won only one seat for every 111,000 votes. In this election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters failed to elect a single MP, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. Or how about the NDP, which garnered a million more votes than the Bloc and came away with 22 fewer seats? So if a candidate wins a riding with, say, 30 per cent of the vote (not an uncommon occurance) while the other three split the remainder, the 70 per cent who didn't vote for the winmning candidate should not be entitled to any representation whatsoever because they backed the wrong horse? Parliment cannot legitimately claim to represent all Canadians as long as this klind of nonsense is par for the course. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with fairness.

Word. That's why I loathe he average American "liberal" almost more than I despise the Republicans. the G.O.P and their base may be fascists in waiting, but with them, at least you know where you stand. "Liberals" in the States like to prattle on about "illegal war " this and "civilian casualties" that, but at the end of the day, they can't help but get a raging hard-on at the thought of America exercising its power at the expense of the "other" (for example, if the President is a Democrat who's illegally bombing Serbians or Iraqis). American exceptionalism and its right to do whatever the hell it pleases is a truism for many on both sides of the political debate: the only disagreement is the context.

Do we need a third thread on this?

This is a good summary of every half-assed, facile and totally fallacious point you've clung to throughout this thread, regardless of any evidence presented. 1. ILGA is one part of the gay rights movement (you know, the one you keep talking about, yet are so frightfully ignorant of) that consists of hundreds of organizations around the world. Even if one presupposses that NAMBLA was ever a serious prescence within ILGA, the latter is not necessarily representative of the "movement" as a whole any more than, say, Stormfront is representative of conservative groups. 2. Your Lithunania claim has been trampled again and again, yet you stubbornly cling to the fallacy that the "Gay Rights Movement" (again!) was responsible for lowering the age of consent (the implication being that the age of consent was lowered for all sex acts) when in fact the AoC for anal sex was lowered to conform with the cutoff for hetero sex. When will you acknowledge what you are saying and the facts are seperate things? 3. NAMBLA seems to have a far greater prescence in the brains of right wingers than it does in the gay community. Certainly, there's no evidence to indicate NAMBLA is a significant part of the gay community or that it even exists (no web site, no membership to speak of), but the prominence the anti-gay right gives it lends credence to YA's claims that it is nothing more than a bogeymany to forment the idea that homosexuality=pedophilia. In closing, it''s funny to watch you question another poster's credibility and raise the spectre of bias when your steadfast refusal to acknowledge the errors in your arguments light up your own biased agenda like a neon sign. In short: you've been pwned.

In other words, wher ethere's no smoke, there's no fire? Feh. The U.S. Democrats can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone make a serious effort to hold the administration accountable for its actions (especially since they seem to be taking most of their cues from Republican partisans who warn that Dems can't win on national security issues, because, you know, Republicans always have the best interests of their electoral foes at heart...) You obviously haven't been paying attention to my feelings on the Democrats either. No partisan I. Cute. Naive to the nth degree, but cute. First, you start with assumption of a free media (as though the press cares for anything more than ratings and advertising than any old-fashioned ideas about "afflicting the powerful" and such) and a vigilant public (as though the public can't be bought off with sloganeering, propaganda and simple pleas to "values"). In other words, checks and balances can be subverted or even co-opted. But beyond those points (which are debatable), the fact is, authoritarian systems do arise from democratic systems if the culture is predisposed to such a system. And I hapen to believe that the U.S. post 9-11 is fertile ground for the authoritarian impulses of government to find expression.

Fair enough, I suppose. But I think that's only one aspect (also the easiest to tackle). The other, mor einsidious side of the isssue is the overall lack of abortion providers. IMO, that ties directly into the tactics of the anti abortion movement (I doubt many doctors would be willing to put up with the hassle of protesters outside the place of work harrassing staff and patients, let alone the abuse and death threats that are par for the course. I guess all I'm trying to say is that the anti-abortion faction has managed to tyhrow up many roadblocks (including legislative ones) without going all the way to dumping Roe.

Dude, don't you know the ACLU is a Satanic, Communist organization, what with its belief of free speech and all? Anyone who claims most pedophiles are homosexual soley on the basis of the gender of the victim and the offender is making such a fundamental error (that is: a error in factual selection) that bias is the only explanation.

What, you think the Conservative dominance of Alberta come as some sort of shock to me? Player, please. Not to mention the fact I've been at my usual awesomeness alll week...

Between state and federal restrictions (ie. parental consent laws, "late term" abortion bans), and a shortage of abortion providers (Eighty-seven per cent of U.S. counties and 98 per cent of rural counties lack an abortion provider. Almost a quarter of women have to travel 50 miles or more to obtain an abortion. 2 percent of Ob/Gyns perform more than 50 percent of U.S. abortions: source), it's already difficult to get. They'll never phase it out with, say, a blanket federal ban (they need it to keep the religious right riled up), but they'll make damn sure that women have to ojump through all kinds of hoops to get it, which at teh end of the day, will have the same effect.

Where did I say otherwise??? Not possible. I acheived my absolute zenith of bitterness ages ago. I don't think addressing someone who is claiming I said something I did not is "shifting the debate". But then I don't really care what you think anyway. Convenient, that.