Canadians did not vote for the conservatives to govern.

[-VMG-]

Canadians elected representatives to make the best choices for their constituents in Ottawa. They did not vote for a party.

This is what a minority government is... it is not about who hold the largest minority... it's about who can band together to make a decision that is best for Canada.

In essence in the situation where no party receives a majority, Canadians did in FACT vote for a coalition.

In reality, every time the conservatives go to pass a bill, they need to create a temporary coalition in order to have the majority of parliament behind their bill.

It's actually very undemocratic to say that the conservatives were given the right to govern by canadians, when in actuality NO PARTY was given the right to govern the country.

I think this is what people are forgetting about the idea of a minority government.

Conservatives were not elected to govern. They simply have more seats than all other minorities. Therefore, it is the majority who governs the country in this case.

I really don't see how it is possible to have a Prime Minister under a minority government. THAT is undemocratic... and doe snot represent the views of the population of Canada.

[Huston]

I prefer minority governments. I think there should be way more parties. Maybe then the ego's can get out of the way.

[Donaill]

I agree but proportional repesentation is really the way to go.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

When I vote for someone, generally I don't care about the local representative - I most often vote for the party they represent.

My understanding was that the party that won the most seats governed the country.

Not a single Canadian voted for a Coalition party led by Dion, as 62% of Canadians split their votes and chose either Layton, Dion or Duceppe.

If this Coalition wants to run as a coalition with dion as the leader... fine, lets run an election and see if Canadians want that.

Usually when there is no confidence in the house with a minority an election is called... why should this time be any different?

[Slim MacSquinty]

In theory you vote for local reprentatives who in theory form a government, however in practical fact you vote for a party, to demonstrate this practical principle just go back to all the threads from just weeks ago wherein many of the same people who are advocating the theoretical government model were debating party platforms and potential PM's.

Furthermore, there was much discussion during the campaign about coalitions and vote splitting/ sharing to prevent a Tory government by the left in addition there was much discussion about the benefits of majority vs minority tory governments. Many people expressed a desire to have a minority government to keep the Tories in check. I do not recall anyone imaging that a Lib/NDP coalition would stoop to joining with the BQ to play government. I submit that no one who voted for Jack Layton realistically expected that he would in any way form a government.

So the concept of the theoretical parlimentary democracy is not the way it actually works. What only a few weeks ago was unimaginable is now being presented by many as a practical government model. Talk about liquid principles.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[ThatGuy]

The comments that we indeed elect the members themselves is true. But, at the same time, many people vote for an individual based on their party affiliation. But again, a member doesn't have to vote with their party, or may even decide to sit with another party after elected, or not even run under a party banner at all.

[-VMG-]

My understanding was that the party that won the most seats governed the country.

They still need support from the majority of representatives...

They are given the ability to put forth bills and such for a vote. But the other parties need to agree with the "governing" party in order to get it passed.

A big reason why the Harper government has retained minority government for a while is because they make everything a confidence vote.

If the liberals can't afford an election they have to agree with the conservatives on the issue otherwise there will be another election.

Our political state and the people in charge of the parties are ALL participating poorly. Not just this coalition, but also the conservative government.

Minority government is the way to go... proportional representation allows for it to happen more often... and creates a better representation of who Canadians really voted for. First-past-the-pole is old and needs to be changed.

Of course the party in charge would never put it in place because they would lose a decent amount of seats in parliament.

On a side note: Partisan politics is also majorly to blame with our political system.... At times it can be beneficial... but other times it can be quite detrimental.

Edited December 4, 2008 by -VMG-

[eyeball]

I agree but proportional repesentation is really the way to go.

I'd say we're getting PR naturally whether people like it or not, kind of the way the economy has turned socialist whether people like it or not. Perhaps there are certain inevitable and dynamic natural socio-economic laws of some kind at work. I'm reminded of the psycho-historical forces portrayed in the sci-fi Foundation stories.

I also agree with the thread title by the way, I voted strategically in the hopes doing so might somehow lead to an ABC coalition. Just before the election I wrote the Green, NDP and Liberal candidates in my riding and their party leaders and told them what I was doing and why.

I told them they should get over themselves and form a coalition but I never expected they'd listen. Maybe this is all my fault and my letter didn't just disappear like a fart into a windstorm. Who knows it might have acted more like a butterfly's wing flap and caused a shitstorm.

Edited December 4, 2008 by eyeball