Jack Weber Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 That is not a clear answer! What do you mean? A party that gets more seats than any other one party? Or a majority can consist of all the losers combined? You can't take all the losers combined as a "will of the people" thing. Voters chose their one specific party that they wanted to win, by voting for that party's candidate in their riding. Nobody asked them about any second choice. If you were to talk to some NDP voter and say "Well, the fact that you voted NDP must mean that you hate Harper so I will cheerfully include you with the Liberals so we can form a coalition government!" has no proof at all behind it. My own father often voted NDP but if you had taken his vote for granted to give to the Liberals you might have lost some teeth! It is totally undemocratic to assume someone's support. If you want to have second choices on the ballot or some sort of runoff election afterwards that's one thing. To just take it for granted so you can use it to get rid of someone YOU don't like is another! You're starting to sound a bit dictatorial here, Harry. You're scaring me! And you sound like John Baird... "The tyranny of the majority!!!" Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Wild Bill Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 A majority of the House of Commons, however composed. You seem to have come to the mistaken conclusion that the Canadian prime minister is elected by some kind of presidential race for the popular vote. Party leaders may campaign that way, and that may be the way Harper's tried since 2008 to spin it away from his 2004 agreement with the Block and NDP, but it's not how the system works. [+] Not at all! I've stated quite clearly that just because something is legal doesn't mean that Canadian voters will cheerfully accept it! I'm also willing to grant that I could be wrong on what Canadians would or would not accept. It's just that many posters in this thread seem to blissfully take it for granted that they can wave their rule book at any pissed off Canadian voter and he would HAVE to accept a coalition! He might have to accept it for the moment and watch it take power but odds are that he will remember for a LONG time and he very well might seize the chance to punish those coalition parties NEXT election! If he's like me, he may hold a grudge for decades! As I said, I may be wrong but in my mind that's better than just ignoring the factor! It's real and will NOT go away! 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."
g_bambino Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) Not at all! I've stated quite clearly that just because something is legal doesn't mean that Canadian voters will cheerfully accept it! You said the majority of the House of Commons can't represent the majority of the electorate and that it would be undemocratic for the majority of the House of Commons to shift its confidence from the leader of the party with the most seats to someone else. You were wrong on both counts. Voters' opinions on such matters are something altogether different. [link] Edited March 30, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 You don't seem to quite grasp the idea of parliamentary democracy. I think a lot of Canadians don't really grasp it. So it's good to have the possibilities clear from the start so you know what kind of government your vote might help precipitate. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Can you explain how, if a party after four elections cannot get 40% of the electorate to vote for them, it is the will of the people that they govern? If you eliminate the separatists their 40% probably comes to over 50% Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Sad but true. What's true? That extremely left leaning political science professors don't like Harper's mildly conservative government? This isn't a big surprise. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 If you eliminate the separatists their 40% probably comes to over 50% The way the system is designed, partisan politics are over when the election is finished. After that, it is the simple numbers of representatives that decide how and who forms a government. The right thing for our representatives to do, is after the election get ALL representatives together in one room at the same time and have real democracy apply itself. There should be a position of responsibility and accountability for every single member of Parliament. That would be a step up from where we are now. Yet none have the balls to do what is only right. Quote
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 "Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy." ???? Pfff, what does some Ozzy know? He's not an ozzie. I'm not sure what he was originally. I gather he immigrated to Canada at some point. He was a political science professor at Waterloo, and a "peace researcher" for the UN. He was recruited to run some sort of think tank for RIM's Jim Balsillie in conjunction with Waterloo, but got fired, apparently because Balsillie didn't think much of his political beliefs. Then he moved to Australia. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
g_bambino Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) So it's good to have the possibilities clear from the start so you know what kind of government your vote might help precipitate. True. But that should start in the schoolroom. Too many Canadians only understand their own government through the giant prism of American politics they see on their televisions on a daily basis (and Harper uses that to his advantage, when it suits him). [+] Edited March 30, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 I think a lot of Canadians don't really grasp it. So it's good to have the possibilities clear from the start so you know what kind of government your vote might help precipitate. The possibilities are generally laid down in high school Social Studies class. While there are some intricacies to our system of government, the concept of coalitions isn't one of them. Of course, it doesn't help that one party went out of its way to use words like "coup" to describe the lawful exercise of the Members of Parliament to vote no confidence and put someone else in charge. Someone will have to explain to me how outright lying about how our system works is somehow more legitimate than invoking a specific formula long recognized as a way to form a government. What's more, someone will have to explain to me the notion that if a no-confidence vote and another group of MPs submitting themselves as some weird esoteric constitutional exercise, some ancient alchemical creation ne'er seen in our modern world, how using prorogation to evade a confidence motion is sooooo much more superior. Quote
Smallc Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 If you eliminate the separatists their 40% probably comes to over 50% So they don't count? Quote
Scotty Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 So they don't count? Well _I_ don't count them as Canadians. I count them as foreigners interfering in Canada's election. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Well _I_ don't count them as Canadians. I count them as foreigners interfering in Canada's election. Well, that's not what they are. You have to remember that not all people who vote Bloc are separatists. Many simply vote for the home team. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Well _I_ don't count them as Canadians. I count them as foreigners interfering in Canada's election. It's rather irrelevant what you think of them. They have Canadian citizenship, they have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Quote
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Well, that's not what they are. You have to remember that not all people who vote Bloc are separatists. Many simply vote for the home team. If they are that ignorant they count even less. Quote
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 It's rather irrelevant what you think of them. They have Canadian citizenship So do many terrorists. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 So do many terrorists. So you're saying people who vote BQ are the equivalent of terrorists? Quote
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 So you're saying people who vote BQ are the equivalent of terrorists? No, you are saying that. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 No, you are saying that. No, I'm not. You did. Quote
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 No, I'm not. You did. See, it's in your post. Not mine. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Saipan, you've gotta be kidding me. Does it really come down to "I know you are but what am I?" We already have one DogonPorch here. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
g_bambino Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) So you're saying people who vote BQ are the equivalent of terrorists? Non sequiturs are actually his special way of saying he lost the debate. [c/e] Edited March 31, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Non sequiturs are actually his special way of saying he lost the debate. [c/e] Many years ago on my first personal computer (a TRS-80 Color Computer), I had a chess program that, if you beat it, it would make illegal moves. Quote
Saipan Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Saipan, you've gotta be kidding me. We already have one DogonPorch here. Now you have TwocatsonPorch. Deal with it Quote
Scotty Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Here guys. Settle down now. Here's a nice story for you to watch. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.