DION STAYS :)

[Mr.Canada]

OK, not 2/3. Only 63% of Canadians voted overwhelmingly against Mr. Harper.

Every region of the country wanted a "Torie" majority except Quebec? You must define "every region" as Alberta. In what other province did Harper get a majority of the votes?

The last time Mr. Chretien won he had 40.85% as did Mr. Martin with 36.7% of voter support. Be sure to include that as well. This is the same for every election. Why not say that as well. Ah yes, you must bend the facts to fit your story.

Our PM Stephan Harper won seats right across this country in every region. With a majority in BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Nunavut, NB and even Ontario where Mr. Harper won 51 seats to the Liberals paltry 38 seats.

Here is a map for you to look at. As you can see Mr. Harper has the support of every region except Quebec. They truly are a national party whereas the Liberals seem to be confined to Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and London. They were virtually shut out every where else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canada_...al_Election.svg

[Topaz]

I keep hearing on the news how Harper wants to WORK with the premiers and with the oppositions party because of the economics problems in the world. Question.... what changed? Why couldn't he work with the above without an election? It looks like Harper is only willing work with the parties only if there`s an emergency. Will his party changed and be a kinder bunch or are they going to start the smart mouth and personal attacks. We will have to seen how long it takes for this to happen and who throws the first attack.

[Mr.Canada]

I keep hearing on the news how Harper wants to WORK with the premiers and with the oppositions party because of the economics problems in the world. Question.... what changed? Why couldn't he work with the above without an election? It looks like Harper is only willing work with the parties only if there`s an emergency. Will his party changed and be a kinder bunch or are they going to start the smart mouth and personal attacks. We will have to seen how long it takes for this to happen and who throws the first attack.

I'm sure that everyone learns things to make them more effective.

As for the personal attacks, it was Chretien and Martin that started this years ago with all that 'hidden agenda" and "guns in the streets" crap. Even though we now know that was a bald faced lie. Funny how everyone swallowed that load of crap and didn't think it was unjust but now that the shoe is on the other foot...well....

Going back even further when they all but tarred and feather Stockwell Day. But that's ok right?

It's ok to bash a Conservative but don't you dare attack our little darling Liberals as they're all angels, seems to be the mantra.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Bryan]

I'm sure that everyone learns things to make them more effective.

As for the personal attacks, it was Chretien and Martin that started this years ago with all that 'hidden agenda" and "guns in the streets" crap. Even though we now know that was a bald faced lie. Funny how everyone swallowed that load of crap and didn't think it was unjust but now that the shoe is on the other foot...well....

Going back even further when they all but tarred and feather Stockwell Day. But that's ok right?

It's ok to bash a Conservative but don't you dare attack our little darling Liberals as they're all angels, seems to be the mantra.

Why stop with Stock Day? The Liberals vilified Preston Manning. They didn't even attempt to run against him or the Reform Party, they just invented a terrifying strawman and ran against that.

Liberals have been playing below the belt politics for decades. But as soon as someone even slightly pushes back, they're the ones to cry foul? They is simply have no credibility in that department.

[Keepitsimple]

Dion has proven to be a conceited, self-absorbed, academic nerd. He is a perfect example of the old academia slur - those who can, do...those who can't, teach. Dion never had a real job and in the world of academia, the Professor is always right - there is no room for team building, consensus building, delegation, and absorption of other's views. He demonstrated those pitfalls and more........and he still doesn't get it. Here's what he said about why he lost:

"I consulted a lot about my own performance and I have been told that it has been a very good one, that I have been a good campaigner. I spoke with conviction. We had a good platform," he said yesterday while announcing his departure. "The election started and we were well behind the Conservatives. I would say ... this propaganda cemented the mindset of Canadians to the point that it was the main reason why we lost. There are certainly other reasons, but this is the main reason."

[White Doors]

"I consulted a lot about my own performance and I have been told that it has been a very good one, that I have been a good campaigner."

He can't even tell when someone is blowing smoke up his dress.

Thank goodness he didn't win. We dodged a bullet there.

[normanchateau]

Here is a map for you to look at. As you can see Mr. Harper has the support of every region except Quebec.

You're flipflopping like Harper.

Here's what you said:

"Every region of the country wanted a "Torie" majority except Quebec? "

Yet Harper did not win a majority of the popular vote in any province except Alberta.

No one disputes that he has support in various regions.

Edited October 21, 2008 by normanchateau

[jdobbin]

How about we do it something like the Americans, a sort of primary election run by Elections Canada. People register for whatever party, then go to a polling station to vote for a leader of their choice.

Problem with that is the cost to the taxpayer, but would it be worth it and would be it constituional ? Apart from the cost, the other problem would be with knee jerk anti Americanism, we don't want it, simply because 'they' do it. -

I think you have hit the nail on the head about one thing: the cost. The U.S. primary system and the neverending election that follows is extremely expensive. Thankfully, with fixed elections, it only happens every four years or eight if you have an unchallenged incumbent.

Our delegate system certainly fit with the type of system we have but as mentioned, the flaws have been known to hurt all the parties from time to time.

Given the lower voter turnout, I think something needs to be different and that might be giving the entire membership a vote on the leaders. A couple of things should be clear though: 1. It has to less expensive 2. It has to be easy. 3. It has to involve as many people as possible. 4. It has to give a clear mandate to the new leader 5. It has to be done so that it builds excitement and culminates in a convention.

I know that some people expressed misgivings about the Alberta leadership vote. I'd be interested to know if it was because of how it was set up.

[scribblet]

I think you have hit the nail on the head about one thing: the cost. The U.S. primary system and the neverending election that follows is extremely expensive. Thankfully, with fixed elections, it only happens every four years or eight if you have an unchallenged incumbent.

Our delegate system certainly fit with the type of system we have but as mentioned, the flaws have been known to hurt all the parties from time to time.

....

I believe with the conservatives the whole membership does get to vote for the leader, but membership as with all parties is fairly limited, the majority does not actually join a party. How do we make it such that all people have the opportunity to vote for the PM...

[Alta4ever]

I believe with the conservatives the whole membership does get to vote for the leader, but membership as with all parties is fairly limited, the majority does not actually join a party. How do we make it such that all people have the opportunity to vote for the PM...

All people do have the opportunity to vote for party leaders, we all have the opportunity to join a party and either vote for deligates who then vote at leadersip conventions, in some parties and in others, it is a direct vote. Everbody can get invovled if they want and have that opportunity. The question is how much handholding do you want in the process.

[blueblood]

I know that the delegate system was chosen as being more exciting, more cinematic but it is possible to have a convention where the vote is determined earlier such as in primaries.

Dion was chosen in an "anything but" campaign that was extremely expensive for all involved. It was expensive financially and it was expensive in terms of the trouble it brought the party.

There has to to be something better. The Alberta system might not be the best out there but I'd be interested in learning more.

Or the Libs could if they really wanted to cut costs is have a secret ballot in a caucus meeting. Caucus of MP's pick the leader for this time only until time and money can be spent on a proper convention years down the road.

[jdobbin]

I believe with the conservatives the whole membership does get to vote for the leader, but membership as with all parties is fairly limited, the majority does not actually join a party. How do we make it such that all people have the opportunity to vote for the PM...

I don't think it is possible or desirable for all to vote for the leadership. It really has to be the members or it could result in mischief makers ala what we have seen in other jurisdictions.

The Liberals chose the delegate system and I think it failed them this past time. The "anything but" campaign led to dropped candidates having great influence and the chosen candidate was sort of a default selection.

[jdobbin]

Or the Libs could if they really wanted to cut costs is have a secret ballot in a caucus meeting. Caucus of MP's pick the leader for this time only until time and money can be spent on a proper convention years down the road.

A change in the constitution of the party is the only way it could happen and that is in May as well.

The secret vote you talk of is only allowed with the death or resignation of the leader. The leader is an interim leader until the next election.

What Dion has done is say he will step down but retained his constitutional right within the party to lead until the convention.

[jdobbin]

All people do have the opportunity to vote for party leaders, we all have the opportunity to join a party and either vote for deligates who then vote at leadersip conventions, in some parties and in others, it is a direct vote. Everbody can get invovled if they want and have that opportunity. The question is how much handholding do you want in the process.

That is not the main issue. The issue is how good are the results afterward? Is their unity? Was it expensive? Did everyone in the party feel involved?

I think for all those questions for the past Liberal convention the answer was no.

[Alta4ever]

That is not the main issue. The issue is how good are the results afterward? Is their unity? Was it expensive? Did everyone in the party feel involved?

I think for all those questions for the past Liberal convention the answer was no.

Leadership conventions by their nature are divisive, this can't be changed. Doesn't matter which party.