YEGmann

I've just taken the quiz on Vote Compass. Where possible, I answered "neither agree or disagree", if this answer wasn't available, I answered "I don't know". In the last set of questions I answered "No opinion". Verdict: I am closest to Liberals, farthest to NDP.

Insisting on an additional debate Ignatieff looks like a beggar with Harper saying him "Get lost!" It is not wise behaviour.

Yes, there are few facts, some of them are not sins but good for Canada. Mostly it is a collection of lies, gossips at best (you call them "opinions"). There is even repetion(s).

This is an old stuff. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Vote+Compass+miscalibrated&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=a1-XTZyTI4mitgfnk-WNDA

IMHO - No.

Elections - yes. Political parties - no.

You should have read the whole text, not just the title. It is pretty clear "It’s different from forming a coalition."

Isn't it still April 1 today?

You are just avoiding presenting arguments on the subject, which I suspect you do not have. Great! But this passage does not cancel the fact that Canada is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy. That means we have combination of democracy and monarchy. Respectively some (vast majority) of governing procedures are democratic, but some are not.

Your question has no relation to a definion of democracy or democratic process. Whatever is my response it does not change the definition.

A president is elected, he is a representative of citizens and ultimately represents them. That is why his decision is a democratic procedure. A monarch, alas, is not elected by citizens...

Absolutely agree. That's what I say. Either people decide (this would be a democracy in action) or the Queen intervenes, which is a rudiment of a monarchy and the process automatically becomes nondemocratic.

Stop, stop! You have to choose for yourself, it cannot be "no one" and "the GG" simultaneously. It should be somebody. If you really meant the GG, I completely agree. It is the GG, not people. But why, in this case, ask about what is undemocratic?

Then, who gives us our government? People? Of course not. Then what is your point?

Well said! (Just instead of "their" there should be "his/her"). I thought that "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives". When a monarch is doing his/her job, I think, is not a democracy. Preventing your further questions, I confirm we do live in a democratic country, however our democracy is not unlimited, we live in a constitutional monarchy. And now we are dicussing the rare case where the Queen through the GG is to excersize Her right over the will of citizens.

I think for the GG, the Block is just a party. If the GG will be sure that the new government will last for some time, he/she may approve the request to reassign the government.

The undemocratic is the process of implementation of what you said. Interference of a monarch. Governing party lost support - all go to a new election. This is a true democratic process.

I do not argue, I agree with you, however, there is a nuance, IMHO. GG will call in Ignatieff only if there will be a hope for a stable government. And if Liberals will have just a few seats, this may not happen. Ignatieff has to form a coalition in advance. As it was in 2008. The coalition appealed to the GG. I may be wrong on this. Just a thought.

About the Governor General decision not to excersize democracy, i.e. allow a new election, but rather put in power a party with not the largest number of seats won during a democratic process of elections. I thought, in Canada, a party with the largest number of seats won in an election forms the government. Am I wrong?

Since then a monarch's decision became a synonym for democracy? Again, it is completely legal, but democratic? I think hardly.

Absolutely. [quote but are we really going to go down the road of arguing that Harper's stance is, now and then, always about principle? Seriously? I would like to answer "Yes". However it was and is not exclusively about principles. With all necessary cynicism and practicism in my view Stephen Harper does have principles. It is about that at a certain point principles should not be overstepped.

Exactly my point No. 2. Not illegitimate but nondemocratic.

The only item you can speculate about is an expression "to lose office". The Harper says all this stuff pretty uncertainly. Eventually may be understood widely. All his talk about coalition can include liberals as a part of the coalition. This too can be interpreted as losing monopoly on keeping the office. Here is no explicit call to deposit liberals from the office "even Liberals get the most seats" as a correspondent twisted Harper's words.

Does this mean that you do not have Harper's own words that a mere coalition of two federal parties is evil?

O, I see... This such logics, why not to demand from car dealers to lower prices for their cars, even with MSRP-10% they have profits. Lets charge them and "penaltize". And low income earners must have government guarantee of buying a decent car for no higher than MSRP-15%. Next, I would "penaltize" lawyers for prohibiting even a middle income earners access to legal services by setting fees too high. They are making too much money in their profits. Justice is not affordable to public. This needs to be stopped! Next... Does this approach remind you something?