TimG

http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/companies-people/governments-can-cancel-contracts-without-huge-penalties/1003320601/ Common law interpretation requires that the government place the intent to cancel specific contracts in legislation. It can't pass legislation that has the indirect effect of cancelling contracts and argue later that it should not have to pay compensation.

The US electoral system balances individual rights with states rights. The EC system gives each state 2 votes in addition to their allotment based on population. I can't see any reason to change this because electoral systems are supposed to balance different objectives. i.e. do why you think a president elected with a large majority in only New England and the West Coast but no where else would be more legitimate than a president with support across the country?

But that is largely due to the insane over-reaction caused by nuclear phobes: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought

There are maybe 30 ridings with less that 80K. So what? The vast majority of the population is living in ridings of comparable size. The constitution is filled with historical crap that is much worse than the over representation of smaller provinces representing less that 10% of the population. It is not worth worrying about.

Not sure what you are talking about. The districts are about as balanced as they can be given the irregular population distribution in the country. It is not reasonable for ridings to cross provincial boundaries nor are physically large ridings desirable so some variation in riding size is perfectly acceptable. If you look at this page http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/list&document=index&lang=e you will see that the vast majority of Canadians live in ridings >80K but < 120K. I see no issue.

Gerrymandered ridings don't have straight lines for their boundaries. Most ridings in Canada have straight lines or a natural geographical feature as their boundaries. I think that is fairly good evidence that no gerrymandering is at work. Here is an example from Texas where the urban ridings are quite clearly gerrymandered: Now contrast that with the Vancouver riding map:

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/richmond-townhouse-strata-meetings-revert-back-to-chinese-language-only-amid-human-rights-dispute

Those words don't mean what you think it means. Nothing in Obama's background would have made him a better candidate than Clinton in 2008. He won because he was black. If anything that would be called "black privilege".

And this makes him qualified for managing an organization with a trillion dollar budget? Sorry. It does not. Running a billion dollar company is certainly a better qualification. Obama was white he would be indistinguishable from Clinton and would never have gotten the nomination. So you can say he got his position because of his skin colour. Trump, OTOH, could have been elected with his anti-immigration platform no matter what his race. BTW: a degree from Harvard is perhaps the best example of "wealth privilege" that you could find. The only reason so much status is conferred on Americans who graduate from ivy league schools is that status is what the wealthy need to protect their privilege for the children. If Americans wanted to do something about social mobility and "wealth privilege" (the real issue) they could start by changing their attitude toward graduates of schools whose main claim to fame is it costs huge sums of money to attend.

People come here who do not speak English. That is a fact of life. The only question is how to deal with it. Telling a strata corp to use only English even if the majority of residents speak another language is a violation of their free speech rights. The only reasonable requirement that the government should impose is that English has to be one of the languages used and that all documentation with legal significance must be available in English. Whether that is accomplished with the use of translators or by using English from the start is up to the strata council.

That word does not think what you think it means. The EC is set up the way the founders thought it should be because the founders believed that state representation matters. That has nothing to with "gerrymandering". To all of the people whinging about the EC: why aren't you complaining about the senate too?

So? That is irrelevant. The system in the US balances individual and state representation. States all have an equal number of senators and two extra electoral college votes. This means that if someone wants to be elected president they have to appeal that extends beyond the heavily populated urban states.

So what did Obama do to qualify for president? Community organizer? Oh right. He's was a black man with good public speaking skills. BTW there is no "white privilege" - only "wealth privilege" . Obama and Trump are both "privileged".

Trump has clearly violated the spirit of the emoluments clause in the US constitution. Trump is trying to argue the letter of the law by saying that 'fair-value exchange does not constitute a gift' The ultimate interpretation of that clause is unknown but I think it is pretty clear that congress has grounds to impeach should they be so inclined: http://time.com/4658633/impeach-donald-trump-congress/ IMO, as long as Trump does what congress wants he will stay. If he tries to bully congress or if the dems retake control he is gone.

Preferential ballot is not PR and I am not that opposed to it. It does not change my point: PMs are disposed in Australia by MPs which gives MPs a lot of power. Canada party constitutions prohibit this and that is why PMs have so much power. If we want to fix that we force parties to change their constitutions ti allow MPs to depose PMs as was originally intended. BTW: Australia has preferential ballots because the vote on the right was split and a conservative PM thought it would improve their chances. Not unlike the Liberal machinations here.