Canadians don't understand our political System?

[Mr.Canada]

A new poll by D'oh Canada claims that Canadians cannot even answer basic questions about our government.

How can we expect Canadians to make a reasonable decision when they do not even understand what they're voting for.

Click me for story.

[Smallc]

You should be glad they don't understand the system. Its because of that that Mr. Harper's numbers are so high in the polls right now. We need a massive education campaign....yesterday.

[blueblood]

You should be glad they don't understand the system. Its because of that that Mr. Harper's numbers are so high in the polls right now. We need a massive education campaign....yesterday.

Nice, when Harper's numbers poll high, the electorate is stupid. When Liberal numbers are high the electorate is educated on the political system. According to Liberals, what people want doesn't matter.

[Smallc]

Nice, when Harper's numbers poll high, the electorate is stupid. When Liberal numbers are high the electorate is educated on the political system. According to Liberals, what people want doesn't matter.

Your first statement is right (in this case, anyway), your second one is wrong, and your third proves that we need a massive education campaign.....yesterday.

[ToadBrother]

Nice, when Harper's numbers poll high, the electorate is stupid. When Liberal numbers are high the electorate is educated on the political system. According to Liberals, what people want doesn't matter.

It's not an issue of the people not knowing what they want, but rather the people not really knowing what they're voting for.

[Michael Hardner]

Surely, it's not that bad.

Only 59 per cent correctly picked constitutional monarchy.

ONLY 59 per cent ?!? What is the threshold for success here. High school history teachers have taken over the world, I'm afraid.

I'm much more concerned about the fact that Canadians don't seem to care that there is no way to monitor the basic operating level of government. Service levels, costs, and performance measurement is only done privately, if at all.

Businesses that don't pay attention to how they do business will fail. The government doesn't fail for failing to deliver quality service. And we're complacent about it.

That's a much worse problem than 31% of people not being able to mouth the words 'constitutional monarchy'.

Who put the damn history teachers in charge ?

[msj]

Surely, it's not that bad.

ONLY 59 per cent ?!? What is the threshold for success here. High school history teachers have taken over the world, I'm afraid.

I'm much more concerned about the fact that Canadians don't seem to care that there is no way to monitor the basic operating level of government. Service levels, costs, and performance measurement is only done privately, if at all.

Businesses that don't pay attention to how they do business will fail. The government doesn't fail for failing to deliver quality service. And we're complacent about it.

That's a much worse problem than 31% of people not being able to mouth the words 'constitutional monarchy'.

Who put the damn history teachers in charge ?

I don't know about history teachers taking over the world, but maybe we should find some math teachers: last time I checked 100 - 59 = 41%.

[Griz]

I don't know about history teachers taking over the world, but maybe we should find some math teachers: last time I checked 100 - 59 = 41%.

Then factor in aboriginal issues they're "Outright Dumb x 20" Most people believe the gossip and heresay about aboriginal people including some of our politicians--now thats sad

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know about history teachers taking over the world, but maybe we should find some math teachers: last time I checked 100 - 59 = 41%. wink.gif

Yeah, I realized this mistake on my way to work today.

I actually have a degree in Math, but apparently not in arithmetic.

[Shakeyhands]

Nice, when Harper's numbers poll high, the electorate is stupid. When Liberal numbers are high the electorate is educated on the political system. According to Liberals, what people want doesn't matter.

I don't believe that is what he is saying at all.

[Moonbox]

You should be glad they don't understand the system. Its because of that that Mr. Harper's numbers are so high in the polls right now. We need a massive education campaign....yesterday.

Mr Harper's numbers are high because the Liberals have succeeded in alienating not only the west, but Ontario outside the GTA as well.

I'm not a huge fan of Harper right now. I don't like a lot of things he does and I know he's a social wing nut. With that said, I do feel he's better than the current Liberal clown show.

All you have to do is look at the bozos running the party these days and it's REALLY easy to see why nobody is interested in them.

Bob Rae ran probably the most unpopular provincial government in Canada EVER. His stablization policy (lol he just threw money towards social services) failed miserably during the last big recession and he left us with record deficits that took years to recover from.

Stephane Dion brought us the most ill-conceived and unpopular election proposal we've seen in longer than I can remember. He was totally out to lunch and the Liberal Party followed him blindly into the mess he landed them in.

Michael Ignatieff stands for a lot of the same things Harper does. He also supported going to war in Iraq. He's spent more time living in the USA and the UK than he has in Canada. He came back to Canada just recently and now he wants to lead the country? Seriously?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Moonbox

[Canadian Blue]

You know what I think, maybe if people stopped thinking that everything will get better if only their goons were in charge the country would be better off. Perhaps we should elect people who actually realize that in general individuals and communities are better able to handle their issues than a few out of touch bureaucrats in Ottawa.

[msj]

Yeah, I realized this mistake on my way to work today.

I actually have a degree in Math, but apparently not in arithmetic.

I ended up confirming it with a calculator.

My excuse is that I'm an accountant who always leaves a tape total as proof that my calculations are correct in my tax and audit files.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't understand our sytem - if it is democratic then it must mean that via the vote, the majority rules - so what is this minority government thing? In my simplicty I would assume who ever gets the most votes based on all the votes rules...apparently we have a shifty system.

[ToadBrother]

I don't understand our sytem - if it is democratic then it must mean that via the vote, the majority rules - so what is this minority government thing? In my simplicty I would assume who ever gets the most votes based on all the votes rules...apparently we have a shifty system.

It's not shifty, it's just that you don't actually vote for a government. You vote for a representative to the House of Commons. Now you may think when you vote for your local Conservative candidate that you are voting for the Conservative Party, and in a way you are. But at the end of the day what you have is an MP, an MP that in reality will align himself with the Conservatives in the House. It's who has the largest bloc of MPs who forms of a government (almost always, it is constitutionally possible for a party with a lesser number of seats to form government, but would only happen under some pretty odd circumstances).

I really do wish more Canadians understood this concept. Governments are selected by Parliament, not by the people. The popular vote, save as a crude determinant of who is most likely to form a government, doesn't factor into it (hence the magic 40% number, once a party crosses it, the odds are rather good that they will take the majority of seats in the House). In a system where you elect a representative from a local pool of representatives, national popular vote really has no political meaning at all, and if you have three or more potentially successful candidates, it may not even have much meaning in the riding.

[Oleg Bach]

It's not shifty, it's just that you don't actually vote for a government. You vote for a representative to the House of Commons. Now you may think when you vote for your local Conservative candidate that you are voting for the Conservative Party, and in a way you are. But at the end of the day what you have is an MP, an MP that in reality will align himself with the Conservatives in the House. It's who has the largest bloc of MPs who forms of a government (almost always, it is constitutionally possible for a party with a lesser number of seats to form government, but would only happen under some pretty odd circumstances).

I really do wish more Canadians understood this concept. Governments are selected by Parliament, not by the people. The popular vote, save as a crude determinant of who is most likely to form a government, doesn't factor into it (hence the magic 40% number, once a party crosses it, the odds are rather good that they will take the majority of seats in the House). In a system where you elect a representative from a local pool of representatives, national popular vote really has no political meaning at all, and if you have three or more potentially successful candidates, it may not even have much meaning in the riding.

Thanks teacher...well explained. I still don't get it fully. "Governments are selected by Parliament" - so is Paliament the people? Or are they just some privledged group of lawyers representing the faded tradtion of monarchy? I suppose you can use the term Parliamentary Democracy...but - that concept seems to be a contradition of terms....who gives the final say to the selection of Parliament? Is it the voter in effect directly?

[Shakeyhands]

Michael Ignatieff stands for a lot of the same things Harper does. He also supported going to war in Iraq. He's spent more time living in the USA and the UK than he has in Canada. He came back to Canada just recently and now he wants to lead the country? Seriously?

You might want to call World Headquarters and have a discussion about Ignatieff and his Iraq war paper, you might find that you want to drop that as a criticsm.

As far as where he lived goes (btw, whilst teaching at some of the worlds most respected Universities) I'd rather have a leader who has more worldly experience than not.

I think you guys need to fine tune the attacks a tad. Just trying to help out.

[ToadBrother]

Thanks teacher...well explained. I still don't get it fully. "Governments are selected by Parliament" - so is Paliament the people? Or are they just some privledged group of lawyers representing the faded tradtion of monarchy?

They're the guys and gals who get elected in each riding.

I suppose you can use the term Parliamentary Democracy...but - that concept seems to be a contradition of terms....who gives the final say to the selection of Parliament? Is it the voter in effect directly?

Who goes to Parliament is selected by the voter. What happens when they get there is often different, but the essential point is that when you mark your ballot, and providing the guy who you marked the X beside wins, that's who goes to Parliament. Maybe it's a lawyer, maybe it's a doctor, or anybody who manages to get the most votes in the riding.

We don't live in a direct democracy. We don't select governments, we select representatives; hence the more apt description "representative democracy". The term "Parliamentary democracy" refers to the kind of representative democracy we have, and yes, there are times when it can be a contradiction in terms, but then again that's true of anything short of the direct democracy one would have found in Ancient Athens.

[Oleg Bach]

Sort of giving Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt because of his physical stature and the books he has written...and that he may be a strong and useful personality...I may have changed my mind after hearing him speak for the first time the other day...how shall I put it -----------weak...most supporters to any degree of globalization are usually bullyish - hence weak. I was really expecting a strong dictatorial tone in his voice - but no -------he is a demasculated liberal....overyly educated and falsely intellectual.

[Poli-Sci Student]

It's not shifty, it's just that you don't actually vote for a government. You vote for a representative to the House of Commons. Now you may think when you vote for your local Conservative candidate that you are voting for the Conservative Party, and in a way you are. But at the end of the day what you have is an MP, an MP that in reality will align himself with the Conservatives in the House. It's who has the largest bloc of MPs who forms of a government (almost always, it is constitutionally possible for a party with a lesser number of seats to form government, but would only happen under some pretty odd circumstances).

I really do wish more Canadians understood this concept. Governments are selected by Parliament, not by the people. The popular vote, save as a crude determinant of who is most likely to form a government, doesn't factor into it (hence the magic 40% number, once a party crosses it, the odds are rather good that they will take the majority of seats in the House). In a system where you elect a representative from a local pool of representatives, national popular vote really has no political meaning at all, and if you have three or more potentially successful candidates, it may not even have much meaning in the riding.

They're the guys and gals who get elected in each riding.

Who goes to Parliament is selected by the voter. What happens when they get there is often different, but the essential point is that when you mark your ballot, and providing the guy who you marked the X beside wins, that's who goes to Parliament. Maybe it's a lawyer, maybe it's a doctor, or anybody who manages to get the most votes in the riding.

We don't live in a direct democracy. We don't select governments, we select representatives; hence the more apt description "representative democracy". The term "Parliamentary democracy" refers to the kind of representative democracy we have, and yes, there are times when it can be a contradiction in terms, but then again that's true of anything short of the direct democracy one would have found in Ancient Athens.

Well spoken. I've had to explain this a fair number of times myself.

[Goat Boy©]

According to polls the Liberals should have about 20 more seats left over from the last election. And according to statistics, sleeping with your head in the freezer and feet in the oven, you will be, on average, comfortable. Since when is the media right about anything? I work in aviation, which is probably their worst market. It's fun to laugh at, but seriously, why take it seriously?

[Smallc]

Mr Harper's numbers are high because the Liberals have succeeded in alienating not only the west, but Ontario outside the GTA as well.

No argument about any of your points. Stephane Dion is why I didn't vote for my party in the last election and why I decided after a few days that the coalition was a bad idea. I have no doubt though, that the part of the reason that the Conservatives had such huge leads in some recent polls is because people don't understand the system.

[wulf42]

Mr Harper's numbers are high because nobody wants the corrupt , tree hugging, save the world, let's talk to the terrorists, line their pockets, arrogant...Liberal types in charge again!

[Oleg Bach]

They did understand one thing. That they all across Canada did not vote for the Block, and that the Block did not give a damn about the best interests of the rest of Canada. The public fully understood that the Block should not have any authority over the rest of Canada - not even 1 tenth of one percent! There is nothing hard to understand about that....... In a representative democracy you do not have people that are NOT your representatives represent YOU. It would be like standing in a court room and all of a sudden the other guys lawyer takes it upon himself to speak on your behalf...I had that happen once and I shut him down. YOU do not represent me sir - so shut up...The lawyer because of his self percieved superiour status thought he could do what he wanted to achieve his goal...The Canadian people simply told the Block to shut their mouths - and they were very pissed off that the Liberals and NDP allowed this insult...The Liberals and NDP showed great disrespect for Canadians - they are passive but not that stupid...don't under estimate the people when it comes to taking away their rights to a true democracy and real representation.

[-VMG-]

That is the most surprising thing i have heard in a long time.... not.

I knew that a long time ago that people were stupid... this is one of the many many things that proves this.

It became stunningly apparent with the amount of people who said the coalition government was undemocratic and how the conservatives were voted in to govern.

Edited December 15, 2008 by -VMG-