Elections Canada's uneven playing field

[Michael Hardner]

Nor do most people. Most people like local representation.

We have had this discussion before, the short comings of PR are disproportionate to the benefits, which mainly benefit the unelected representative picked to sit...

I believe there was even a poll here that fell short of support for PR. That upheld my faith in MLW.

I'm a left-of-centre poster, but I'd rather not live in a society where conservative governments are in effect outlawed by PR.

[Wild Bill]

I agree to a point which is why I read the Globe. However, The Star went after Sponsorship as hard as any other paper. Has the NP ever written a negative article about the CPC? That's a serious question.

As hard as any other paper? Perhaps, but they were the very LAST to start, if I recall.

Meanwhile, all through the Chretien years when all the other papers had front page articles about Shawinigate, HRDC and all the other liberal scandals if the Star covered them at all it was buried on page 15, bottom of the page in the inside corner.

Didn't you read the Star back then? Were you blind?

[Argus]

Yup! I just find it ironic and telling that the defender of conservative values went bankrupt to begin with. Having people with Liberal ties buy it is the icing on the cake. As Bart Simpson would say, "oh the ironing!"

Oh the irony of a guy who proudly proclaims he doesn't ever read a newspaper crowing about his hope that someone destroys it, and then laughing about something which never happened - and then quoting Bart Simpson.

[Argus]

How did the Liberals destroy institutions? When did they terrorize citizens using the RCMP?

The Liberals basically destroyed the RCMP. They put in place bureacrats who they called "commisioners" but these men were no more real police officers than Julian Fantino is. They were self-serving, suckups who would do anything asked of them, regardless of whether it was illegal. Chretien ordered the RCMP to violate the rights of protestors in BC and they did so quite readily, knowing they were breaking the law. He used the RCMP to try to cover up his fraudulent misuse of the Business Development Bank. He corrupted the bank, too, of course, by appointing his lackeys to run it. The bank gave hundreds of thousands of dollars - taxpayer dollars - to a criminal who was a business friend of Chretien so Chretien could be paid by him. That money was never paid back. And when the BDC tried to call in the loan its head was fired and then hounded by the RCMP, who raided his home and cottage repeatedly and tried to persuade the Quebec crown to arrest him on something - anything.

Rather than investigating the sponsorship scandal it was discovered the RCMP was in fact, involved in fraud as well, that its Chretien-appointed higher ranks were infested with corrupt, dishonest individuals who, like Chretien, took action only against those who attempted to expose their criminality. The RCMP pension fund scandal and their misuse of funds from the sponsorship scandal are just the most readily accesible examples.

On top of that the RCMP was short changed for funds for years and stringent employement equity guidelines were imposed on them so that, during the 90s, it was fairly well-known they had a "No white males need apply" rule. That led to greater and greater staff shortages because if they couldn't find the appropriate number of equity people they simply didn't hire.

I believe the people handing over the brown envelopes were put in prison.

Almost no one but dyed in the wool Liberal true believers actually thinks the lowbies who were fingered were actually responsible. It was well known that the kickback scheme only managed to stay alive because of support from the PMO. The public servants in Public Works were very disturbed by the program and complaiend all the way up the ladder to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the highest public servant in Canada. Only the PMO could have kept it going. I'm not saying Jean Chretien personally pocketed cash - although come to think of it, he is now a multi-millionaire after a lifetime in politics - but he certainly knew all about it.

[Argus]

I agree to a point which is why I read the Globe. However, The Star went after Sponsorship as hard as any other paper. Has the NP ever written a negative article about the CPC? That's a serious question.

The Star utterly ignored the sponsorship scandal, and when it absolutely had to cover the hearings it played down anything which might sound critical of its great leader. The Globe is not quite the Liberal rag the Star is but it's not much better.

[Argus]

it add a tiny bit of balance if was sold to liberal backers...as it is now we have a chain of conservative propaganda rags and tv stations across the country controled by one conservative owner...

That you somehow have convinced yourself we have a lot of conservative news media only indicates just what a massive distance away from both the centre - and reality - you are out there on the far fringes of the Left.

[nicky10013]

That you somehow have convinced yourself we have a lot of conservative news media only indicates just what a massive distance away from both the centre - and reality - you are out there on the far fringes of the Left.

Bahah this post is too funny. First, let's deal with the star ignoring the sponsorship scandal. I can tell you it didn't. I don't know where you're from but I actually live in Toronto and I can tell you it was on the front page quite a bit.

Secondly, the Toronto Star was pretty much the only large/national newspaper to actually endorse the Liberals. The Globe, obviously the Post, the entire Sun chain of newspapers and all the other major Canwest papers all endorsed Harper. How's that for Liberal bias? If that hasn't convinced you, let's look at TV. CTV might as well stand for Conservative Television. Their UNBIASED POLITICAL GUY WAS APPOINTED TO THE SENATE BY HARPER! Global is nothing but a CPC shill network as well. They had a local and quite vocal conservative hack talk show host do a segment every night here in Toronto. HE was fired. Why? Because he called out John Tory for not doing a good job during the provincial election. That just leaves the CBC. It leans from the left but has no problem attacking every party. Let's move on to the radio. It's well documented that 80% of all talk radio in North America is Conservative.

So please, tell me where the left wing media bias is because if you think the media is too liberal, it's not us on the lunatic fringe my friend.

Edited February 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[wyly]

That you somehow have convinced yourself we have a lot of conservative news media only indicates just what a massive distance away from both the centre - and reality - you are out there on the far fringes of the Left.

ya right the entire Canwest Global Empire controled by the Asper family, nearly every major Newspaper west of Montreal, put their combined weight behind the conservative party shaping public opinion through daily editorials, plus the entire Global TV network, this empire is as objective in journalism as Faux Nexs...carry on in self-delusion land...

[PIK]

The Liberals basically destroyed the RCMP. They put in place bureacrats who they called "commisioners" but these men were no more real police officers than Julian Fantino is. They were self-serving, suckups who would do anything asked of them, regardless of whether it was illegal. Chretien ordered the RCMP to violate the rights of protestors in BC and they did so quite readily, knowing they were breaking the law. He used the RCMP to try to cover up his fraudulent misuse of the Business Development Bank. He corrupted the bank, too, of course, by appointing his lackeys to run it. The bank gave hundreds of thousands of dollars - taxpayer dollars - to a criminal who was a business friend of Chretien so Chretien could be paid by him. That money was never paid back. And when the BDC tried to call in the loan its head was fired and then hounded by the RCMP, who raided his home and cottage repeatedly and tried to persuade the Quebec crown to arrest him on something - anything.

Rather than investigating the sponsorship scandal it was discovered the RCMP was in fact, involved in fraud as well, that its Chretien-appointed higher ranks were infested with corrupt, dishonest individuals who, like Chretien, took action only against those who attempted to expose their criminality. The RCMP pension fund scandal and their misuse of funds from the sponsorship scandal are just the most readily accesible examples.

On top of that the RCMP was short changed for funds for years and stringent employement equity guidelines were imposed on them so that, during the 90s, it was fairly well-known they had a "No white males need apply" rule. That led to greater and greater staff shortages because if they couldn't find the appropriate number of equity people they simply didn't hire.

Almost no one but dyed in the wool Liberal true believers actually thinks the lowbies who were fingered were actually responsible. It was well known that the kickback scheme only managed to stay alive because of support from the PMO. The public servants in Public Works were very disturbed by the program and complaiend all the way up the ladder to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the highest public servant in Canada. Only the PMO could have kept it going. I'm not saying Jean Chretien personally pocketed cash - although come to think of it, he is now a multi-millionaire after a lifetime in politics - but he certainly knew all about it.

We can't forget about Chretien loyalists, such as CEO of Canada Post André Ouillet and head of Via Rail Jean Pelletier. Two more institutions tarnished over the scandals. And now people are all up in arms because harper has a personality of a rock, at leat he is a honest rock. We will never know the real extent of the sponsership scandal and how far it really went.

[William Ashley]

There are some very serious issues with the electoral system in Canada.

First and foremost is barriers to running for office. The charter states that individuals have the right to be eligible for public office, yet there are barriers within the elections act that are arbitrary and bar running for office.

The main barriers, are the fee to run, and the fee to pay for an auditor - even in non expense campaigns.

The higher the office one runs for often the higher the price is. For example on a municipal level you pay between $100 and $200. These funds are only remitted to people who get a margin of votes such as 2% of voters. At a provincial level the fees more than double, and at a federal level they at least double again.

These fees for the ability to run are the first inequality in the system. The next is giving tax deductions for parties, or giving special privileges to parties that aren't provided to independent candidates.

The inequalities and unconstitutional electoral laws are the first issue with elections in Canada. People ought to have the right to run, and paying for office is a backward practice, that is in some ways corrupt, and discriminatory of lower income individuals. The discrimination and disenfranchisement of the poor ought to end.

----

The second major problem with Canada is that it has a mostly non representative partisan system of governance that doesn't allow popular insight into public opinion in regard to laws effecting the masses. First past the post is a failure, and representation per electoral vote entrusted is a much better system for popular mass legislation.

By means of the elections act's unconstitutional rules - the chartered accountants organizations of the provinces determine who can run for office.

Edited February 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[Argus]

Bahah this post is too funny. First, let's deal with the star ignoring the sponsorship scandal. I can tell you it didn't. I don't know where you're from but I actually live in Toronto and I can tell you it was on the front page quite a bit

No, actually it wasn't. It put the hearings on the front page, always slanted, so the headline could basically have read, every day "Chretien wasn't at fault! It was just a few small fry!"

Secondly, the Toronto Star was pretty much the only large/national newspaper to actually endorse the Liberals. The Globe, obviously the Post, the entire Sun chain of newspapers and all the other major Canwest papers all endorsed Harper.

Yes, out of distaste for Dion. Nevertheless, I read the Globe every day, and it's coverage is generally very anti-Harper. Hell, at one point they had seven or eight "prorogue" stories on the front page of their web site every single day - for weeks. They clearly had decided to keep up the pressure, keep up the bad publicity as long as humanly possible. CTV coverage is similarly anti-government in nature. I've watched it for years, watched its interviewers lob softball questions to Liberal and NDP MPs and let the wiggle out of answering anything they didn't want to, then bear down on Tories. The Sun chain is more populist grass roots than conservative. It generally, but not always agrees with the Tories, and isn't at all afraid to criticise them and has done so often. As for the CBC - nuff said.

[Argus]

ya right the entire Canwest Global Empire controled by the Asper family, nearly every major Newspaper west of Montreal, put their combined weight behind the conservative party shaping public opinion through daily editorials, plus the entire Global TV network, this empire is as objective in journalism as Faux Nexs...carry on in self-delusion land...

The Asper family have been dedicated, lifelong members of the Liberal Party for as long as I can remember. Only the growing anti-semitism in that party has begun to give them doubts about the wisdom there.

The only major news organization in Canada I can think of which compares to Fox is the Star.

[nicky10013]

No, actually it wasn't. It put the hearings on the front page, always slanted, so the headline could basically have read, every day "Chretien wasn't at fault! It was just a few small fry!"

Yes, out of distaste for Dion. Nevertheless, I read the Globe every day, and it's coverage is generally very anti-Harper. Hell, at one point they had seven or eight "prorogue" stories on the front page of their web site every single day - for weeks. They clearly had decided to keep up the pressure, keep up the bad publicity as long as humanly possible. CTV coverage is similarly anti-government in nature. I've watched it for years, watched its interviewers lob softball questions to Liberal and NDP MPs and let the wiggle out of answering anything they didn't want to, then bear down on Tories. The Sun chain is more populist grass roots than conservative. It generally, but not always agrees with the Tories, and isn't at all afraid to criticise them and has done so often. As for the CBC - nuff said.

Your first assertion is blatantly false. There's just nothing I can say about that. Your second assertion: god forbid the globe cover the story of the day. Everyone at the globe thought the story was going to go away and when the tories lost 10 points in the polls, that's when it became a big and they put 8 articles on their website. Rex Murphy, Jane Taber, Margaret Wente, Norman Spector and the Powers idiot. All are conservative. Spector was Mulroney's chief of staff and they bring in Powers to do Powers and Silvers, a conservative-liberal opinion blog but somehow Powers does far more blogging than the other guy. Liberal? Please. If you view those people as Liberal, like I said, you're far more extreme than any people who lean to the left here.

[nicky10013]

The Asper family have been dedicated, lifelong members of the Liberal Party for as long as I can remember. Only the growing anti-semitism in that party has begun to give them doubts about the wisdom there.

The only major news organization in Canada I can think of which compares to Fox is the Star.

Bahahahahahahaha. Grasping at straws. What anti-semitism in the party? Not everything you read in 10%ers are true. Here I thought only brain dead morons would buy into that crap. Oh, wait....

[Argus]

Your first assertion is blatantly false. There's just nothing I can say about that. Your second assertion: god forbid the globe cover the story of the day. Everyone at the globe thought the story was going to go away

You're privy to the inside thinking at the Globe, are you? Was it something like "If we keep posting six, seven, eight stories a day, breathlessly beating this up into a crisis - the story will surely go away soon"?

and when the tories lost 10 points in the polls, that's when it became a big and they put 8 articles on their website. Rex Murphy, Jane Taber, Margaret Wente, Norman Spector and the Powers idiot. All are conservative. Spector was Mulroney's chief of staff and they bring in Powers to do Powers and Silvers, a conservative-liberal opinion blog but somehow Powers does far more blogging than the other guy. Liberal? Please. If you view those people as Liberal, like I said, you're far more extreme than any people who lean to the left here.

I don't know what planet you're writing from, goober, but on this one Jane Taber's loathing for Harper - and his for her - has been well known for some time. You don't have to look hard to find Taber's insinuations, which often border on smears, against individual tories on CTV either. That you would spit out four names and call them evidence that the media in Canada is all conservative is silly enough. That you'd include Jane Taber borders on insanity.

[Argus]

Bahahahahahahaha. Grasping at straws. What anti-semitism in the party? Not everything you read in 10%ers are true. Here I thought only brain dead morons would buy into that crap. Oh, wait....

The Aspers have been dedicated Liberals for decades. Even a simpleton should be able to check that out if he can find a monkey to type on that keyboard thing and a fourth grader to read the words to him.

[nicky10013]

The Aspers have been dedicated Liberals for decades. Even a simpleton should be able to check that out if he can find a monkey to type on that keyboard thing and a fourth grader to read the words to him.

I never called that into question. I called you a brain dead moron because you think liberals are anti-semitic.

[nicky10013]

You're privy to the inside thinking at the Globe, are you? Was it something like "If we keep posting six, seven, eight stories a day, breathlessly beating this up into a crisis - the story will surely go away soon"?

I don't know what planet you're writing from, goober, but on this one Jane Taber's loathing for Harper - and his for her - has been well known for some time. You don't have to look hard to find Taber's insinuations, which often border on smears, against individual tories on CTV either. That you would spit out four names and call them evidence that the media in Canada is all conservative is silly enough. That you'd include Jane Taber borders on insanity.

More proof of deranged lunacy and idiocy. Either that or sheer ignorance. I mentioned those 4 names as specific examples from the Globe and Mail editorial section. Never did I mention that those 4 names imply that Canadian media is Conservative, just the Globe. Furthermore, I don't know how often you read Jane Taber, but it's pretty obvious what team she plays for. Maybe it's because you have a list of newspapers and magazines you don't read or TV you don't watch because god forbid they have "impure" liberal ideas.

As for the other papers and TV networks and newspapers, it's pretty clear where they stand. To still say there's a horrible MSM liberal bias is to ignore facts. It really boils down to paranoia. What's more likely? The whole press is liberal and out to get the small base of conservative whackjobs or that you and the lunatic right wing fringe that think like you are so extreme that everything remotely moderate is socialism by another name?

Edited February 7, 2010 by nicky10013

[bloodyminded]

the lunatic right wing fringe that think like you are so extreme that everything remotely moderate is socialism by another name?

I think this approaches the answer. Someone here said that we can tell the media is "leftist" because they refer to "militants" rather than "savages."

Imagine that. "Objective" news media reporting on the "savages" who hate freedom, while our inherently noble troops, led by brave politicians, try to eradicate Evil from this world.......

Because the Globe doesn't have "In God We Trust" on the masthead, it is a radical left news organ.

[Michael Hardner]

The second major problem with Canada is that it has a mostly non representative partisan system of governance that doesn't allow popular insight into public opinion in regard to laws effecting the masses. First past the post is a failure, and representation per electoral vote entrusted is a much better system for popular mass legislation.

As I mentioned earlier, we discussed PR here in days gone past, and this most centrist board gave it, by and large, a thumbs-down. Luckily, it seems to be on the retreat in Canada. People seem to be suspicious about the NDP being so enthusiastic about it.

[Argus]

I think this approaches the answer. Someone here said that we can tell the media is "leftist" because they refer to "militants" rather than "savages."

I think those who daintily refer to people who firebomb girls schools and throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls as "militants" because they don't want to be seen as taking sides by "labelling" them as terrorists have so little moral compass that calling them Leftists is probably flattery.

[bloodyminded]

I think those who daintily refer to people who firebomb girls schools and throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls as "militants" because they don't want to be seen as taking sides by "labelling" them as terrorists have so little moral compass that calling them Leftists is probably flattery.

Yes, but the media has many such problems, and (a rare defense of the news media from me) it is a genuine dilemma.

The media doesn't refer to the murderers of detainees as "murderers" either.

[Shakeyhands]

The Star utterly ignored the sponsorship scandal, and when it absolutely had to cover the hearings it played down anything which might sound critical of its great leader. The Globe is not quite the Liberal rag the Star is but it's not much better.

Bollocks.

[nicky10013]

I think those who daintily refer to people who firebomb girls schools and throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls as "militants" because they don't want to be seen as taking sides by "labelling" them as terrorists have so little moral compass that calling them Leftists is probably flattery.

Is it? This entire post supposes that there's no reason for what these people do. What makes our cause more just than theirs? Surely the west in our campaign to rid the world of "terror" have killed as many innocents as they have. I may not agree with their goals, or actions. However, I certainly understand why they're so upset. In order to curb their behaviour shouldn't we do that rather than to just assign names (and bombs) to the people who purpotrate these types of things? I'm no pacifist but there are different ways to fight a battle than with guns. The war against terrorism has to be fought with economics. The more we alienate these people, the harder they'll fight against us.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If you and the right don't understand that, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

[M.Dancer]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If you and the right don't understand that, it's all the more reason to keep you whackjobs from government.

Would you call someone who blows up a passenger train a freedom fighter? What about buses and subways in rush hour?....flying packed passenger planes into office towers filled wiyth workers?

The inability to distinguish between genuine freedom fighter and terrorists is one the liberal west's biggest failures.