ReeferMadness

.... and that is why I vote green. lol

OK, you're right. The people are idiots, it's just a great system them keeps them in line.

So, first of all, I'm waiting to hear you explain how Finland, Italy and Germany work almost exactly the same as Canada. And second, you're right the PM isn't directly elected. But people think he is. And so when he acts like an autocrat, they don't see it as a problem.

Because of themselves. In spite of the system.

Yeah. Their punishment will be crippling. Lifetime parliamentary pensions and money-filled private sector careers. I feel sorry for them already. I don't know why everyone seems to think that we have to shop the globe and pick something another country is using. I would also caution that there are a lot of factors that make a country what it is. Canada is great in spite of our antiquated political system, not because of it. In fairness, the voters do own the ultimate accountability. People need to educate themselves and hold their representatives accountable. And that doesn't usually happen. However, the parties are the real culprits, taking advantage of the peoples ignorance to instill power in the hands of unelected hangers on. Oh, lord - really? You're telling me that the cause of the Duffy scandal was that the PM was afraid of his caucus? hahahahaha. That's a good one. And here we were believing it was because of incompetence and corruption in the PMO. Thanks for the clarification. Don't get me wrong. I think system where the PM is accountable to parliament would be awesome. We just don't have one now.

Clearly you don't understand what you're arguing because while the powers of hereditary heads of state of mostly symbolic, the heads of elected heads of state are all over the map. Compare Germany, Italy and Finland. Elections confer legitimacy where heredity doesn't. It's curious that monarchists seem to trip and stumble over that point that seems blindingly obvious to most.

And that's the whole point. The constitution is not something we inherited from our antiquated broken model, it's something where we broke from the past and did something new.

Ooooohh. Of course. Constitutional monarchies where the head of state is a hereditary figurehead are nearly identical to parliamentary monarchies where the head of state is elected, either by parliament or directly by the people. If that's the case, I don't know why we bother with any of these silly elections since they don't seem to have any effect. And I suppose the guy who made the map just lost his red crayon and figured orange was close enough. So, it seems like your theory is that this group of countries, some of which have hereditary heads of state, some of which have elected heads of state, some of which have benefited enormously from an almost unprecedented bull market in commodities, some of which have benefited from the EU; have managed their finances because...... sorry, what is your point again? And if you're claiming that somehow, having a weak, unelected, unaccountable head of state somehow leads to financial prudence, shouldn't the UK be on top of the list?

oooh I get all goose-bumpy when people toss out unsubstantiated random generalizations that are so easy to take down.... like this one Please. Do tell me how you measure that. Let me get some popcorn first. and this one Soooo..... take a look at this map and explain to me how most first world countries use something that is almost identical to what we have. Don't start yet - I have to get my popcorn!

I'm not sure you have. The power of the party leaders, the PM and the PMO have grown steadily over the decades. This isn't a one party issue, but Harper rode into power on the broomstick of cleaning up Ottawa. Not only has he completely and utterly failed, he's made things much worse. And the sad thing is that the undemocratic things he's done have worked for him. If he's defeated, it won't be because he's an autocrat, it will be because there is an economic downturn, his PMO mismanaged the Duffy affair to the point of buffoonery and his party (and his base) fundamentally don't give a crap about refugees. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next PM to adopt these same undemocratic tactics. And if there is is a minority government, it's likely they will be within 5% of the vote away from majority territory under our broken voting system. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next government to game the system and look for an opportunity for an early election to get a majority. There are all kinds of different models. As soon as you talk about an elected head of state people just jump to the assumption that the intent is to simply take on the American system holus bolus. The model we have is broken. Most people don't understand it and so there is very little political fallout when some leader (like Harper) plays loose and fast with the rules. Do you remember when Dion & Layton proposed a coalition government? The Conservatives were able to successfully convince Canadians this was tantamount to a coup d' etat because so many people are clueless when it comes to how parliamentary systems are supposed to work.

Like a whole bunch of other legal products.

I'm not sure you've been paying attention to what's been going on in Canada. I don't see anyone standing up in our parliament to explain himself. I see someone arrogantly thumbing his nose at a powerless bunch of nobodies. The checks and balances in any system can be subverted. And the problem with American politics is not an elected president, it's that it's been captivated by uncontrolled influence of money. Our system is not immune to that either.

Several European (Germany, Denmark eg) countries rely to a significant extent on solar and wind. Please do provide some examples of all of the people dying because they can't heat their homes. You think I just made this up?

Bingo.

I find it's best not to feed the trolls.

.... and you spend 8 years making the situation worse.... ... and after you get out of office, people pay you in paper bags of cash....

Apparently, you don't but I think most people can figure it out.

Naheed Nenshi calls out Chris Alexander.

Iraq had a very socialized economy before the US took over. In flagrant violation of international law, the US privatized much of it. In order to ensure the privatization stuck, they needed to remove everyone associated to the previous government. The result was chaos.

Exactly. This is why I've removed my vote.

International politics are usually a cesspool of hypocrisy. Politicians know that they can generally get away with gross mischaracterizations of is going on because most news organizations find it cheaper and easier to parrot what the government tells them than figure out what is really going on. Usually, it turns out that both sides are partly right and partly wrong and this situation seems to be no different. I generally rely on independent commentators like Gwynne Dyer to help me figure out what is really going on. Here is what he said about Putin:

I've deleted my vote, since the poll doesn't make sense.

It's legal, as long as you follow the regulations. Just like everything else that is legal.

So, your position is consistent with the Green Party and the Liberal Party. Both of whom are on the record as supporting legalization.

You're making up your own language, here. And using it in a way that is inconsistent with the way the parties use it and the way that it's commonly used. If someone from a distant country inquired whether alcohol was legal in Canada, would you really answer "no, it's just decriminalized"?