Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Smallc]

You had 5 choices for a rubber stamp for a party leader.

No, there was an independent on my ballot (that would mean that there were six choices I suppose), just as in many places. Really, I don't get it. There are many different government systems to choose from around the world. If you don't like this one, move. I don't think that everyone else should have to change because a minority is dissatisfied for various reasons of questionable legitimacy.

[Wilber]

No, there was an independent on my ballot (that would mean that there were six choices I suppose), just as in many places. Really, I don't get it. There are many different government systems to choose from around the world. If you don't like this one, move. I don't think that everyone else should have to change because a minority is dissatisfied for various reasons of questionable legitimacy.

So you can't tell me the difference. Did you vote for the independent?

I am merely pointing out how limited our democracy is at the federal and provincial level. If you have a problem with that, tough. Don't be telling me I should move, that just demonstrates how shallow your commitment to democracy really is.

[Alta4ever]

No, there was an independent on my ballot (that would mean that there were six choices I suppose), just as in many places. Really, I don't get it. There are many different government systems to choose from around the world. If you don't like this one, move. I don't think that everyone else should have to change because a minority is dissatisfied for various reasons of questionable legitimacy.

What were the choices on the liberal party leadership ballot that Ignatieff was elected on? That is what wilber is getting at.

[jdobbin]

What were the choices on the liberal party leadership ballot that Ignatieff was elected on?

Why it a concern to you?

[g_bambino]

Don't be telling me I should move, that just demonstrates how shallow your commitment to democracy really is.

No, I think he's showing how shallow his commitment is to your unique idea of democracy. Frankly, I don't fault him for his lack of enthusiasm. As I already mentioned, you display a simplistic take on the concept of democracy, oddly whining that there aren't enough opportunities to vote while discounting as irrelevant the opportunities to vote that we have. So far, the impression given is that you desire a world where the populace directly votes on everything, meaning we'd all be casting three dozen ballots a day. Not only would the majority reign unchecked over the minority, but we'd spend our lives running the state with no time for our own affairs.

[Wilber]

No, I think he's showing how shallow his commitment is to your unique idea of democracy. Frankly, I don't fault him for his lack of enthusiasm. As I already mentioned, you display a simplistic take on the concept of democracy, oddly whining that there aren't enough opportunities to vote while discounting as irrelevant the opportunities to vote that we have. So far, the impression given is that you desire a world where the populace directly votes on everything, meaning we'd all be casting three dozen ballots a day. Not only would the majority reign unchecked over the minority, but we'd spend our lives running the state with no time for our own affairs.

Bullshit, show me one post where I have said the populace should vote directly on everything. That would be impossible.

What are you afraid of?

[Smallc]

Did you vote for the independent?

No. I voted Conservative...because I wanted to.

[g_bambino]

Bullshit, show me one post where I have said the populace should vote directly on everything. That would be impossible.

What are you afraid of?

Is that a tough-guy front to cover up some insecurity?

To get a point through you don't have to be explicit; and, indeed, you haven't been. Hence, I spoke of what appeared to be case.

[Smallc]

Don't be telling me I should move, that just demonstrates how shallow your commitment to democracy really is.

I'm not sure why you would stay. It's obvious (to you) that you're living in some kind of communist one party state where you don't have any choice or freedom. It must be a terrible place. Thank God I live in Canada.

[Wilber]

Is that a tough-guy front to cover up some insecurity?

To get a point through you don't have to be explicit; and, indeed, you haven't been. Hence, I spoke of what appeared to be case.

Indeed I have been very explicit about my views and given my reasons for them, all you have done is call me simplistic and suggest I leave the country

[Wilber]

I'm not sure why you would stay. It's obvious (to you) that you're living in some kind of communist one party state where you don't have any choice or freedom. It must be a terrible place. Thank God I live in Canada.

Do you read anything I post?

[Smallc]

I do, but I'm often puzzled. I've given you my reasons for why I prefer our current system...and all you can do is say that I have a shallow view of democracy.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

I do, but I'm often puzzled. I've given you my reasons for why I prefer our current system...and all you can do is say that I have a shallow view of democracy.

Unlike you and bambino, I haven't suggested you leave the country because I don't agree with you.

[Smallc]

I don't think Bambino suggested that. I only suggested it as an easy and achievable solution to your problem...one that I doubt many Canadians share to any great degree.

[g_bambino]

ndeed I have been very explicit about my views and given my reasons for them, all you have done is call me simplistic and suggest I leave the country

No, Smallc made that suggestion.

The only thing you've been explicit about is your disapproval of being unable to vote, vote, and vote some more. 19th century constitutional changes, political party leaders, judges, Senators, the Governor General, for all of these (and maybe more; this is just off the top of my head), you've complained about the associated absence of absolute, popular balloting. The logical conclusion from those expressed opinions is that you believe appointments and representative voting has no place in a democratic system, leaving direct and popular voting as the only remaining option. And, as I said way back, thinking that democracy means nothing more than a ballot box is, well, juvenile.

I’d be very surprised if you said now that appointments and representative democracy is acceptable for a self-governing country.

_[c/e]

Edited September 11, 2009 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

No, Smallc made that suggestion.

The only thing you've been explicit about is your disapproval of being unable to vote, vote, and vote some more. 19th century constitutional changes, political party leaders, judges, Senators, the Governor General, for all of these (and maybe more; this is just off the top of my head), you've complained about the associated absence of absolute, popular balloting. The logical conclusion from those expressed opinions is that you believe appointments and representative voting has no place in a democratic system, leaving direct and popular voting as the only remaining option. And, as I said way back, thinking that democracy means nothing more than a ballot box is, well, juvenile.

I’d be very surprised if you said now that appointments and representative democracy is acceptable for a self-governing country.

Bullshit again. I started off on this tread maintaining that we should ban confidence motions and arbitrary dissolution of parliament by government. Maintaining that they should fulfill their contract to the electorate by governing not scheming for the next election. That would mean fewer elections not more. I don't know about you but if I contracted someone to do a job and they quit half way through it, I would not hire them back.

I have decried the fact that the candidates we elect are subservient to someone we don't get to elect unless we happen to live in a party leaders riding. I do not believe that is particularly democratic. Everything else you have made up on your own. The real democracy in this country is at the civic level where we do see those people on our ballots and get to vote on some individual initiatives as well. I guess that is too much democracy for you.

[Smallc]

Bullshit again. I started off on this tread maintaining that we should ban confidence motions and arbitrary dissolution of parliament by government. Maintaining that they should fulfill their contract to the electorate by governing not scheming for the next election.

See, this is what I don't get here. Are you saying that you would rather have a coalition than an election, because that's what you're proposing. Parliament is not the Government of Canada. Parliament doesn't govern, it legislates. If there is a lack of confidence in the governing body within parliament, then legislating can become very difficult. In order to solve these problems, we end up with the fall of governments within parliament, and the formation of a new government, usually via election. Under your idea, with the government constantly changing hands without an election within a minority parliament. Perhaps you would ban coalitions too?

[jdobbin]

I have decried the fact that the candidates we elect are subservient to someone we don't get to elect unless we happen to live in a party leaders riding. I do not believe that is particularly democratic. Everything else you have made up on your own. The real democracy in this country is at the civic level where we do see those people on our ballots and get to vote on some individual initiatives as well. I guess that is too much democracy for you.

And the voter turn out at the city level is even worse than the federal level.

[g_bambino]

I started off on this tread maintaining that we should ban confidence motions and arbitrary dissolution of parliament by government.

I have decried the fact that the candidates we elect are subservient to someone we don't get to elect unless we happen to live in a party leaders riding.

Yes, you did say those things. You said much more, though.

[Wilber]

Yes, you did say those things. You said much more, though.

Well why don't you address what I did say? I have pointed out what I see as being undemocratic about our system. I haven't advocated dumping it but I have advocated ways of making it more democratic and more responsible, mainly restricting Parliament's ability go play games with the system and demanding more responsibility and accountability from our individual members by relaxing party discipline. Let them shine (or not) according to their own actions. I'm also open to any other suggestions which might improve it.

I know you will say it is impossible but you don't really know that and neither do I. It would require our parliamentarians to replace much of the traditional gamesmanship with more work which won't make it popular with many of them.

[Wilber]

And the voter turn out at the city level is even worse than the federal level.

So what, does that mean you think more democracy is bad because that is what I am getting from all this.

[jdobbin]

So what, does that mean you think more democracy is bad because that is what I am getting from all this.

It means that I don't necessarily think of city politics as more democratic than other forms of government. Nor do I think it inspires more than other forms.

[g_bambino]

Well why don't you address what I did say? I have pointed out what I see as being undemocratic about our system. I haven't advocated dumping it but I have advocated ways of making it more democratic and more responsible

Er, I did exactly that and summarised exactly that. You never explicitly advocated eradicating the system entirely, but complained about every, single non-elected element of it, meaning your Commons reform must therefore be only one part of your wider desire for change. I believe Smallc has already amply dealt with it - it would freeze the nation's political opinion for X number of years, rendering parliament useless, thereby allowing any government to do as it pleased without fearing a loss of confidence from the House. The whole idea of responsible government is thrown out the window.

But, as I said, that seems to be merely one part of your greater dissatisfaction with our Westminster parliamentary and constitutionally monarchical democracy. Perhaps instead of focusing on little details first, you should present your larger scheme for analysis. I suspect it would look a lot like the US congressional and presidential system.

_[sp]

Edited September 11, 2009 by g_bambino

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Wilbur, move over and let me stand beside you. We need some changes to enhance the system.

[Wilber]

Er, I did exactly that and summarised exactly that. You never explicitly advocated eradicating the system entirely, but complained about every, single non-elected element of it, meaning your Commons reform must therefore be only one part of your wider desire for change. I believe Smallc has already amply dealt with it - it would freeze the nation's political opinion for X number of years, rendering parliament useless, thereby allowing any government to do as it pleased without fearing a loss of confidence from the House. The whole idea of responsible government is thrown out the window.

But, as I said, that seems to be merely one part of your greater dissatisfaction with our Westminster parliamentary and constitutionally monarchical democracy. Perhaps instead of focusing on little details first, you should present your larger scheme for analysis. I suspect it would look a lot like the US congressional and presidential system.

_[sp]

I disagree, it would encourage responsible government and discourage the irresponsibility of dissolving parliament for purely political reasons. The US system has its own issues but it is definitely more democratic and an incumbent's voting record in Congress is very much an issue at election time. All you know in Canada is that if an MP is still part of caucus they have toed the line and voted as a loyal party member. Canada's Parliament is one of the most draconian on the planet when it comes to enforcing party discipline. The parliamentary system didn't start out like this, we imposed it on ourselves. In many countries including the UK, it is not unheard of for an MP to vote against the party line and survive as a party member. In Canada it is invariably their last act as a member of caucus. It seems to me that you fear the people you elect and believe they must be put under the strict control of someone else. Perhaps I have more faith in them than you.