William Ashley Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. Edited January 19, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Battletoads Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 Because is a first past the post system you can score whatever you like on the ballot so long as everyone else scores less than you. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
William Ashley Posted January 19, 2010 Author Report Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) Because is a first past the post system you can score whatever you like on the ballot so long as everyone else scores less than you. Yeah, we should change that, let start the first "highest number of votes" shadow government. I'll act as the virtual king to set the rules. 1. Every Canadian receives one vote and can vote on anyone. Parents can vote for their minor children under the voting age. Children can vote for themselves, but parents can veto. If two parents disagree then the childs vote is split to half a vote for each. 2. To be eligible to run you must be a Canadian citizen. There are no other qualifications. 3. There are no campaign spending limits or election rules other than the one vote per person. No government funds are provided except to register peoples votes, which must all be public, and can be changed at any time. Edited January 19, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Wild Bill Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. Looks to me like your point would be even stronger with either of the other two choices! "In addition, 26 per cent of respondents approve of the way New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton is doing his job, while 17 per cent feel the same way about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 Looks to me like your point would be even stronger with either of the other two choices! "In addition, 26 per cent of respondents approve of the way New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton is doing his job, while 17 per cent feel the same way about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." Astute observation. No doubt due to the environmental stance. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. As you probably know, it's the results of the voting that decide who wins elections, not the popularity in-between days. That's the case in every democracy I know of, so what are you talking about ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
g_bambino Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. Harper doesn't represent the country. Political leaders can't be removed the second their popularity falls below 50%; not without causing intolerable instability. Opinion polls don't run the country. Democracy takes more forms than the simplistic popular kind. Canada is not a popuular democracy. That Canadians are still unaware of the above is a shame. [sp & c/e] Edited January 19, 2010 by g_bambino Quote
ToadBrother Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. And once again for the folks at home, we vote for a Parliament. Parliament chooses the government. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 Yes, the PM should be the most popular person. It should be a tossup then between Sidney Crosby and Celine Dion. They both live in the USA, but that shouldn't stop them from running as Liberal leader. Personally, I'll take Sid, The Goat Faced Devil is a bit scary. Quote The government should do something.
ToadBrother Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 Yes, the PM should be the most popular person. It should be a tossup then between Sidney Crosby and Celine Dion. They both live in the USA, but that shouldn't stop them from running as Liberal leader. Personally, I'll take Sid, The Goat Faced Devil is a bit scary. Considering the polling figures of all the party leaders, who exactly would we have as PM? It's not like Canadians are looking at any of the three federalist party leaders and going "THAT'S THE MAN!!!" I have my problems with Stephen Harper, I won't deny it, but popularity as the necessary requirement for being PM? How many Prime Ministers in our history have ever polled 50% or better? I'm too lazy to look, but I'd wager very damned few. Heck, even in places like the States where the popular vote for the President is a somewhat meaningful quotient, the guy that wins usually does by getting a few points above 50%, a plurality to be sure, but hardly an earth-shattering one. Quote
Jack Weber Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. Once the Haitian earthquake falls off the front pages,things will get back to normal.The Lib's may have found themselves on the right side of public opinion with Iggy calling them back to work.It seems that,contrary to Harpers babbling yes men(Pierre Poillievre),Canadians DO CARE of there Parliament is highjacked by a cowardly bully who can't control his message.It'll be interesting if this trend sticks through the Olympics.I suspect the Con's are hoping for a bump from the superficial nationalism the event will bring.If that does'nt happen,and they bring down a supremely onerous(Harrisite) budget,things are going to get very ugly!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Moonlight Graham Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34864/rating_for_harper_drops_to_28_in_canada Harper is polling at 28% popular support way lower than George Bush, how can Canada be called a democratic country when someone who is so widely unpopular and unsupported is allowed to represent the country. It is a shame. If the trends continue the liberals will be sitting above the Cons by march. Before the proroguing, Harper polled 10 points higher at around 38%. That's about the same % of Canadians who voted for him/his party last election. The CPC is polling at about 29% right now, which is about the same as Harper's ratings now. So that's about consistent all the way around. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted January 19, 2010 Report Posted January 19, 2010 Yeah, we should change that, let start the first "highest number of votes" shadow government. I'll act as the virtual king to set the rules. 1. Every Canadian receives one vote and can vote on anyone. Parents can vote for their minor children under the voting age. Children can vote for themselves, but parents can veto. If two parents disagree then the childs vote is split to half a vote for each. 2. To be eligible to run you must be a Canadian citizen. There are no other qualifications. 3. There are no campaign spending limits or election rules other than the one vote per person. No government funds are provided except to register peoples votes, which must all be public, and can be changed at any time. I like your utopia, where people that are unable to have children are not as valuable as those who can, people convicted of the most heinous criminal activities can become PM as long as they have citizenship, and the financial elite and corporations pay politicians as much as they need to get their party elected. Great ideas. Quote
William Ashley Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) I like your utopia, where people that are unable to have children are not as valuable as those who can, people convicted of the most heinous criminal activities can become PM as long as they have citizenship, and the financial elite and corporations pay politicians as much as they need to get their party elected. Great ideas. 'True crimes' that are serious should cause a loss of citizenship and/or death. Why don't the youth count? Personally they are citizens too. The charter gaurentees no discrimination on the purpose of age. There is no actual basis in fundamental justice to give them suffrage and the right to vote. Edited January 20, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 Looks to me like your point would be even stronger with either of the other two choices! "In addition, 26 per cent of respondents approve of the way New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton is doing his job, while 17 per cent feel the same way about Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." The other two wern't for the post of PM, it was "how are they doing their job". Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 As you probably know, it's the results of the voting that decide who wins elections, not the popularity in-between days. That's the case in every democracy I know of, so what are you talking about ? And in Harpers case its electoral fraud and breach of election laws that wins elections. Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 And once again for the folks at home, we vote for a Parliament. Parliament chooses the government. Hahah, maybe without something called prorogue, serving antidemocratic process annually in a parliament near you. Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Before the proroguing, Harper polled 10 points higher at around 38%. That's about the same % of Canadians who voted for him/his party last election. The CPC is polling at about 29% right now, which is about the same as Harper's ratings now. So that's about consistent all the way around. You are wrong actually, for this poll. You are referencing "party" polling not, PM approval rating polling or leadership polling. The two polls are actually two different polls. Although both do matter to a certain extent. Edited January 20, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
g_bambino Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Hahah, maybe without something called prorogue, serving antidemocratic process annually in a parliament near you. I see. So all along you never wanted the true answer to your question, you merely wanted the answer you liked; i.e. some kind of frothing and raving about Harper, the evil hun and inventor of baby killing prorogations. Hasn't nurse called you for your meds, yet? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) And in Harpers case its electoral fraud and breach of election laws that wins elections. You have already said that Harper is as bad as Hitler, so why would minor infractions like that bother you ? If I thought our leader was worse than Hitler, I'd be gathering people to overthrow him. Instead, you're on a web board nitpicking. Something doesn't add up. Edited January 20, 2010 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
ToadBrother Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) Hahah, maybe without something called prorogue, serving antidemocratic process annually in a parliament near you. Prorogation is in the constitution, and has been a part of Parliamentary procedure for centuries. What Harper did, particular in 2008, was a serious abuse of that power, no doubt about it, but the Opposition needs to grow the balls to take Harper to task. They too, in their own way, are not interested in the good conduct of Parliament, so they won't put the government to a confidence vote after the Throne Speech. So they are as much a part of the problem as the Tories. Edited January 20, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote
g_bambino Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Prorogation is in the constitution, and has been a part of Parliamentary procedure for centuries. What Harper did, particular in 2008, was a serious abuse of that power, no doubt about it, but the Opposition needs to grow the balls to take Harper to task. They too, in their own way, are not interested in the good conduct of Parliament, so they won't put the government to a confidence vote after the Throne Speech. So they are as much a part of the problem as the Tories. Well put. Quote
Dithers Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 This thread is ridiculous. You're bouncing from one idea to the next all in the name of taking a potshot at Stephen Harper. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.