Machjo

Either way, as long as the ballot makes it crystal clear to the voter what he's really voting for.

I see. So all of Canada's problems are caused by 'our' 'refusing' to learn 'your' language? Britain no longer rules the waves even though she may still wave the rules.

Why should any province have more than one official language? For any regional entity to function effectively, it needs a common language, and in that respect though I think Bill 101 goes way too far, I do agree with the basic principle at least. It not ony saves money, but ensures full integration of the community, not to be confused with assimilation, which Bill 101 does unfortunately do.

What does this have to do with languages. Read my post above. needles through the tongue played a nice part too.

I was just pointing out how the mutual enemies of the Bloc and the Conservatives often seem to have more in common with each other than they do with the other parties, that's all.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/03/language-wars.html Sticking needles through the tongues of Aboriginal children in forced residential schools who dared speak their mother tongue was quite the motivator too. Maybe our immersion programme instructors coul d learn from that success.

OK, I used my words wrong there. But Switzerland is also much, much more decentralized than Canada, with most of the power in the hands of the Cantons, not their federal government. And they essentially practice regional monolingualism at the government levels for the most part.

Most Francophone Quebecers are more opposed ot Official Bilingualism than the Conservative Party. Even the Bloc has asked that federal offices in Quebec no longer be required to offer services in English. Irony of ironies, the Bloc is more conservative than the conservatives in that particular front.

Who was talking about cheque books? How about simple decentralization? The Federal government could serve as something like the EU Parliament, whereas the provinces could serve as something equal to European nations. Each to their own in a common united but decentralized federation. But very decentralized.

Again, there are many ways of changing the ballot to reflect the reality of how voters really vote, and tere have been many valid arguments for different systems presented in the thread. The main thing is, whatever system is adopted, we must ensure that it reflects the reality of how voters vote, and I think anyone can agree that the current ballot doesn't reflect that.

This is true. I tend to vote candidate myself too. But he does have an argument as far as consistency is concerned. If a person is voting for the party leader in his mind, then ot be fair to that voter, the ballot should reflect that. Not the direction I'd want to go in, but his argument is indeed valid.

This could be fair if the party leader then gets to choose the members of his caucus as a percentage of the popular vote, and it would be more consistent than what we have now. However, it would give that party leader a tremendous amount of power. And he coudn't be removed nor could he change his party affiliation to stay in tune with the ballot.

We do not share a common military force with the US; we're merely in an aliance with the US. As such, we still need our own military capability. Having said that, though, i would not be against Canada sharing a force with another country or countries to save money and make the force more effective at the same time. An Anglosphere force could be something I'd be open to. Perhaps a parallel francophonie Force too. It would increase effeciveness and save money, killing two birds at the same time. But until that happens, Canada needs a complete force of its own.

Another problem I see. Some here seem to view international relations along very materialistic lines (i.e. what's in it for me) rather than from a more altruistic POV. Union with Mexico might slow down Canada's development in the short to medium term, but would certainly benefit the Mexican people more than it would hurt us. In spite of that, we'd rather keep them down in our attempt to keep what's left of what we have, we want to build a fortress America. If we could look beyond self interest to altruism (all too dead a virtue in the hearts of most compatriots I believe), we could adopt policies that would help to develop the world, at but a small sacrifice on our part. Yet we'd rather keep the rest of the world down so that we can benefit just a little more. How shallow!

1. The Han are not a small minority. They constitute about 90% of China's population! 2. A country needn't be a chalenger to become more influential. Overall, China has gained influence not by trying to challenge the uS, but rather by minding its business overall except when directly and legitimately affected. 3. The Anglosphere, though a legitimate concept, is still limited in its application. Heck, a good 20% of Canadians do not belong to the Anglosphere!

You clearly don't understand the complexity of Canada, and the psychological impact of the culture barrier. When I was in Robervalle, few could function in English. In fact, only the local English teachers and a few workers at the local casino, the tourist hub, could. As for the rest, they were as monolingual as it gets. How are they supposed to feel any sense of commonality with a people who are total strangers to them? When they watch TV, they more often than not see their anglophone compatriots speaking with their lips out of sinc with their voice, since they're all dubbed. Even politicians, their supposed national leaders. How are we to expect them to identify fuly with representatives who are dubbed like foreigners to them on TV? We don't even watch the same TV chanels or read the same newspapers or visit the same websites. We are total strangers to each other unless we can communicate with each other. That's just the reality of Canada today. Add to that that the cultural icons of French Canada haven't kept up with the times either. The French lyrics to the national anthem are: O Canada! Land of our forefathers Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers. As is thy arm ready to wield the sword, So also is it ready to carry the cross. Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits. Thy valour steeped in faith Will protect our homes and our rights Will protect our homes and our rights. That cross can also be understood as a crucifix. Most Quebecers aren't Christian anymore, making the national anthem itself feel out of place. And anyone aware of its history with the St. Jean Baptiste Society, the whole anthem is steeped in Catholic symbols. The English version of the anthem doesn't even correspond: O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Then add to that that 8% in Nunavut can speak neither English nor French. And they even have their own unofficial version of the anthem: Uu Kanata! Nangmini nunavut! Piqujatii nalattiaqpavut. Angiglivalliajuti, Sanngijulutillu. Nangiqpugu, Uu Kanata Mianiripluti. Uu Kanata! nunatsia! Nangiqpugu mianiripluti, Uu Kanata, salagijauquna So, is that based on the English version, the French version, or is it yet a third version? Meanwhile, at least some First Nations see themselves as just an occupied people (I've met a few like that. Whether a majority or small minority, I don't know, but the simple fact that they exist isdeserving of our consideration). Quebecers say that their history begins with the French Colonization of North America, and that they are a people defeated on the Plains of Abraham, desirous of regaining their honour on an equal footing with the rest of Canada. English Canadians consider both the First Nations and Quebecers as cry babies who simply refuse to accept that they won. I'm not saying that it would not be possible to fuly unite Canada. But if you believe that it is united now, you're in for a rude awakening. For a country to survive, it needs a common culture, which implies a common language, 'religion' (not necessarily a revealed religion, but some kind of common belief, be it in the Constitution, or anything, but definitely some kind of common civic 'religion'), etc. Of course it could be a common second culture, but a common culture it needs to be either way. Without it, Canada can only drift ever farther apart.

That's the whole point; can't you see the contradiction in what you're saying? If he's allowed to cross the floor, then his party affiliation is irrelevent on a ballot. And if his party affiliation is relevent on the ballot, then the candidate is expected to honour that. How can we say that party affiliation is relevent on the ballot and that he is free to cross the floor at the same time? Clearly it's got to be one or the other. His party affiliation is either guaranteed on the ballot, or it isn't. Which is it?

I fuly agree with that. And if that's the case, then he should be free to vote for the party and not the candidate. Why could we not include parties on the ballot separately from candidates? This way, a voter who wants to vote for the party can do so, and in the event that his MP withdraws his party membership before the end of his mandate, the ballots could be recounted while clearly distinguishing between votes cast for candidates and votes cast for parties. That's not possible in a clear-as-mud system as we have now.

If a party name appears under a candidate's name, thus giving the impression to the voter that he is in fact voting for the party, then prohibiting candidates from withdrawing party membership or, in the case of independent candidates, from joining any party, would certainly be more fair than what we have now. It's not the direction I'd like to move in, but as I've mentioned before, if party names must be on the ballot, then let's make it true in reality too, either by removing candidates' names altogether from the ballot and going to the list system, separating candidate names from party names on the ballot, thus making it absolutely clear whether a voter is voting for the party or the candidate (which is as clear as mud when both names are to be checked in the same box), or, as you recommend, take away the candidate's freedom of association and force him to call a bi-election whenever he should change his party membership status. As for floor-crossing being uncommon, that's irrelevent, It's the principle that matters here. Again, though I'd prefer going in the opposite direction by diluting party power, I could still agree with the recommendation you've made above as a means of ensuring consistency between the impression given on the ballot, and the reality in the legislature. If both party and candidate name appear on the ballot to be checked in the same box, thus making it impossible to be sure what exactly the voters are voting for, then to be sure that the vote remains faithful to the ballot, certainly the candidate must accept suspending some of his freedom of association for the duration of his mandate. And yes, that wold still be fairer than what we have now.

And just another point about my 'arrogance'. Voting and a FAIR election is the cornerstone of democracy, not something to take lightly. Misleading ballots are therefore a travesty of democracy. I can be open to FPTP or proportional representation, voting for candidate or party, party list, STV, etc. Of course I have my preferences which I'd mentioned before (non-party system), but more important that my personal preferences is ensuring that the ballot presents an honest portrayal of how the vote will really count. Some may see that as arrogant. I see it as defending an honest ballot. We have honesty in adertising, with laws to back it up. How can a ballot afford to be any less stringent in its 'advertising'?

Well put. I'd add to that that a choice made in ignorance is no choice at all. A person who votes party X because his parents voted party X could just as easily vote for the party that least represents his beliefs. We owe it to such voters to break that cycle and give them the true freedom to vote for a candidate who truly represents his beliefs, and making it more difficult to blindly follow family tradition can liberate him from such slavery of the mind to traditionalism. It may sound arrogant, but the political system is too serious an institution to let it fall to such blind traditionalism. If you want to wear your granddad's cowboy hat as a matter of tradition, fine. But if you're going to vote for a party you know nothing about just because your granddad did, then you're putitng the rest of the country, including your own best interests, in peril. Anyone who takes democracy and government and voting seriously can see that voting for party X for the sole reason that grandpapa did is not a worthy reason to vote. Any half intelligent fool can see that.

You make a few false assumptions. I don't necessarily support any individual party, either big or small, and I'm all for people casting an informed vote. But when you put the candidate's party affiliation under his name when in fact we're voting for the candidate no matter of his party affiliation, that's just plain dishonest and misleading. I have a right to votel without being misled. I have a right to know how my vote goes. If I put an X next to a candidate with a party neme under his name, what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that if he withdraws from the party, that he'll step down as MP and the party will fill the seat with another party member? If not, then if I'm not so highly educated, I could come to believe that that's how it is when it isn't. Ina democracy, the ballot shold be easy for all to understand, regardless of educational attainment. If we put a party name under the candidate's name, the voter's choice is not a real free choice sinse it's a choice based on false pretense. If he wants to vote party, then he has a right to make sure that that vote sticks with the party even if his candidate crosses the floor. If he wants to vote candidate, then he should have a right to make his vote stick to the candidate even if that candidate crosses the floor. Under the current system, it's confusing. If the candidate crosses the floor, does the vote go to the candidate or the party? If both names are there, then all legitimacy is lost because no one knows who really voted for what.

Like I said a few posts above, if a person wants to vote for the party instead of the candidate, then to be honest, split the boxes on the ballot between candidate and party. If you want to vote for Suzy Smith, then put a check next to her name. And if you want to vote for Party A, then put a check next to its name. But they should be separate boxes, and if Suzy Smith withdraws from Party A after becoming the local MP, then the ballots must be recounted removing Party A votes from her total. After all, if people want to vote for the party instead of the candidate, then their vote should always remain with the party. If the candidate resigns at any time during the mandate, the votes should be recounted, with party votes being counted separately from personal votes, and then distributed according to candidates' party affiliations. Anything else is dishonest, unless of course we're just out to give mainsteam parties an unfair advantage? Besides, if one really wants to know a candidate's party membership, can't he read it from another course besides his ballot? But if we insist on including party name, then at least separat it from teh candidate on the ballot if we're honest.

But I just think that having but one box to check candidate and party together is just plain dishonest. They're two separable entities, so how can you possibly be voting for both. You're clearly voting for one or the other.

Now the other way I could see a FPTP ballot being more honest and less misleading would be that there be a separate box for candidates and parties. So for example: If John (Party A), Mary Party B ), Marc (Party C) and Suzy (Party D) were on the ballot, you'd have the following options to vote for: John Mary Marc Suzy Party A Party B Party C Party D All votes for John and Party A would be added together, and so on along the line. Let's say John gets the most votes for both himself and Party A, then he becomes the new MP. In the event that he should withdraw his memebrship from Party A at any point within his mandate, all votes cast for Party A would have to be subtracted from his total votes. Now let's say he chooses to become an independent MP. In that case, if Mary, though not an MP, is still a member of Party B, and she got more votes for herself and her party than John did for himself, John could be booted out of Parliament and Suzy takes his place, assuming she got more votes than all the others. Now let's say John withdraws from Party A but decides to join Party B. Then though party A votes would be subtracted from his total votes, all party B votes would be added to his total votes. If with that he still has more votes than Mary, then he remains the MP for his riding. If Mary is still a member of Party B, then the Party B votes could legitimately be counted twice for both John and Suzy since clearly they dont' care what candidate they want anyway, as long as it's a member fo Party B. This would be a much more honest way to count the votes so as to not mislead anyone into thinking they're voting for a party when they clearly are not.