Evening Star

Do you mean that you hold a second election between the top two? That's different from my understanding of IRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

That seems really problematic to me. What would the 'proportional members' do on votes of conscience, where the party leader does not whip them, for example? They are not representing constituents. Do they get to sit on committees, just like members who were actually elected by their constituents? What sort of input could they give, other than just party talking points? Can they sponsor private members' bills, just like their representative counterparts?

I haven't read those books, admittedly. Seriously, does no one remember how the press treated Bob Rae when he was premier, back when Conrad Black still dominated the media? Some discussion of it here: http://logospathosethos.com/articles/2010/10/24/the-ndp-legacy-in-ontario-20-years-later.html I could go on listing things like this: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/23/david-frum-the-disastrous-legacy-of-pierre-trudeau/ or even MLW posts like the one where someone blamed the Liberal Party for turning Canadians into wimps, as evidenced by the private-sector CBSC's ruling on "Money for Nothing" and an Alabama publisher's posthumous censorship of the 'n-word' in Huckleberry Finn... but it's unlikely I'd sway anyone who thinks the media is biased against the right, especially if people are going to keep listing anecdotal examples or claiming that Free Dominion is more civil than Rabble. On the whole, I honestly think the Canadian media is quite balanced and fair. I even enjoy reading people like Frum or Kheiriddin.

Thanks.

It's amazing how reliable they often tend to be though, eh?

I posted about this on another thread: The confusion seems to stem from the fact that liberalism prioritizes individual liberty but "liberty" can be defined in more than one way. So, broadly, in the 18th century definition of "liberalism", "liberty" was largely defined in terms of freedom from government restrictions ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NegLib ) - which meant laissez-faire free market policies in the economic sphere. In the 19th century and afterwards, the definition of "liberty" began to mean more than this: the freedom to pursue the life one wants to lead, which could mean, for example, that everyone needs to have access to education and the basic means of life regardless of income or social class ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#PosLib ). A good summary of the debate: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebBetOldNew Or the simpler Wikipedia entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Classical_and_modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism (what "liberal" usually means today in North America)

Because they'll still keep 71% of it?

Ha, it seems that nothing will convince Conservative supporters and right-wingers that the media is not biased against them, no matter how many editorial boards supported Harper in the last election, no matter that Andrew Coyne - whose usual criticism of Harper is that he's too far left - is the chief editor of the biggest news magazine in the country, no matter that Tasha Kheiriddin and Tom Flanagan are regular panelists on Power and Politics, no matter the freakin' National Post...

Some polls have shown the NDP statistically tied with the CPC in SK/MB and #2 in BC and AB.

As Kimmy said elsewhere, this doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing to me, although I voted NDP. The polarization, partisanship, and back-and-forth of US politics is something I'd like to avoid. I think it's good to have a pragmatic, centrist 'brokerage party'. However, a polarized two-party system does seem to be every right-winger's fantasy. I'm guessing it's because they'd win elections half the time and could be seen as one of the two credible choices, instead of being at one extreme of a multi-party system. I actually agree that the NDP could benefit from having more reponsibility and having to come up with practical solutions to real-world issues. I hope they use someone other than New Labour as their model though. (Considering that New Labour seems pretty similar to our Liberal Party, it does seem a little curious that you'd look forward to the Liberals dying out and being replaced by ... an NDP that's just like the old Liberals.) Definitely a good thing. All of this may be premature though. The polls are showing the NDP tied with the Liberals, not wiping them out...

I didn't say that the 'left' (scare quotes especially necessary when talking about mainstream Democrats) never demonizes right-wing leaders. I just disagreed that the left does this more than the right

Ever tried reading Free Dominion?

Probably not, since he wasn't in power and couldn't have implemented any socialist policies?

The same?? What kind of attacks on Harper do you see that are comparable to the things Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or birthers come up with about Obama? Tbh, I don't even really know what you're referring to, since the examples seem to all be rather anecdotal. (I could relate an anecdote about someone I knew who recoiled in disgust and denounced Jack Layton as an anti-Semite as soon as his name came up. And the CPC attack ads on Ignatieff themselves seem to be personal attacks.) In general, people find themselves under attack more often when they are actually in power. (Look for things that were written about Bob Rae when he was premier or look at the kind of blinding hatred many on the right still harbour for Pierre Trudeau, 27 years after he left office and a decade after his death.)

Have you paid any attention at all to how the popular American right likes to talk about Obama?

It's been mentioned already but people don't necessarily vote according to a 'left-right' spectrum. In the 90s, for example, Reform was able to take many ridings that had formerly been held by the NDP.

Close to 40% in a four-party system is pretty freakin' great, honestly.

But they've never asked for anything close to total capitulation from the CPC, only very specific and relatively modest social welfare measures, with which they were willing to support a government whose agenda is otherwise fairly opposed to the NDP's principles.

Yes, and it also made the Liberals seem like they were either blatantly insincere or else as clueless as the CPC when it comes to the actual seriousness of contempt for Parliament. Either way, it made me begin to lose trust in their platform.

Total capitulation?? Do you have any concept of what total capitulation to an NDP agenda would look like?

I just don't agree that this is the case. "We'll keep your government in power if you [extend EI benefits/increase the GIS for seniors]" seems like a two-way street to me.

Isn't that usually how deals work?

This is actually one aspect that pushed me away from the Liberals.

Cool, Smallc. For some reason, I had you pegged as leaning towards neoliberalism on economics, in a Paul Martin sort of way. What is perhaps ironic is that, on paper, the current Liberal platform is pretty much my ideal platform. However, based on the parties' track records in the last Parliament, the leaders' debate, and my local candidates, I also voted for and am volunteering with the NDP. (Tbf, I guess Paul Martin wasn't even all that doctrinaire.)

It comes with a separate costing document, available on the website: http://www.ndp.ca/platform