expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) In our federal AND provincial systems, no matter what system is used, we end up with a system that only represents the riding in which the PM ran no matter what party wins. Now this I agree with, and I like the way you put it. This is a question of unchecked executive power, and especially prime ministerial power, another issue separate from electoral systems. But entirely within the scope of this thread. Edited April 12, 2011 by expat voter Quote
Saipan Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Election system is the very least of our problem when it comes to democracy. The increasing "in your face" government is. Bureaucrats that know better what is good for us. The feel-good laws. Quote
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 a system of perfect democracy needs to be recognized as being entirely unrealistic.There are characteristics of every voting system that need to be balanced: stability, regional representation, historical representation (as with Quebec) and giving a voice to minority voices. An example would be Quebec, which would lose a significant measure of representation in favour of, say, the Greens and NDP. Does Canada feel that this is a good power shift ? I agree with the first paragraph quoted above. But the second one seems to refer to Greens and NDP getting more representation than the BQ. This overlooks the fact that many people in Quebec would cast votes for the NDP and Greens, and that hard-line sovereigntists are most representative of Quebec. But I agree a mechanism is needed to recognize the central historical and current importance of minority francophone Canada. Quote
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 fMy saying we could shoot bloc members was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but really, why aren't they arrested and tried for treason? Because most Canadians respect the right of self-determination and would prefer to have Quebec stay in Confederation by their own choice rather than by force. Your rhetoric moves Quebec towards independence and Canada towards "civil war." (that's an oxymoron if there ever was one) Quote
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 The constitution allows for the lawful departure of a province from Confederation; it isn't easy, but it's possible within the law. Including the Clarity Act. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Because most Canadians respect the right of self-determination and would prefer to have Quebec stay in Confederation by their own choice rather than by force. Your rhetoric moves Quebec towards independence and Canada towards "civil war." (that's an oxymoron if there ever was one) I have long wished for another referendum, and have sworn a solem oath that if one comes, I will go to Quebec to lobby for a yes vote. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I have long wished for another referendum, and have sworn a solem oath that if one comes, I will go to Quebec to lobby for a yes vote. What a great Canadian you are. Canada is a far better place because of diversity and bilingualism. Quebec contributes a great deal to the culture and identity of this country. Quote
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Election system is the very least of our problem when it comes to democracy. The increasing "in your face" government is. Bureaucrats that know better what is good for us. How to get the influence of money out of democratic politics? Who speaks for those with less monetary income? Canada is moving towards becoming a plutocracy, if not one already. Edited April 12, 2011 by expat voter Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) . Edited April 12, 2011 by Smallc Quote
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I doubt that very much. I tried to erase that before it got quoted but you beat me to it. It was being very tongue-in-cheek. (ps Thanks, Smallc. Very civil of you.) Edited April 12, 2011 by expat voter Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 What a great Canadian you are. Canada is a far better place because of diversity and bilingualism. Quebec contributes a great deal to the culture and identity of this country. I have heard many people say that. But how? I don't get it. They suck gazillions of dollars from the rest of the country, in spite of their incredible mineral and hydroelectric wealth. But their corruption puts all that in the Mafia's hands and all the other provinces have to GIVE them more and more. I'm really willing to try my luck without them. I honestly believe it is too late for me. The tax liability will be with me till I die, but maybe if we get rid of them, my grandkids will have a better future. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I tried to erase that before it got quoted but you beat me to it. It was being very tongue-in-cheek. No problem, it's gone. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I have heard many people say that. But how? I don't get it. They suck gazillions of dollars from the rest of the country, in spite of their incredible mineral and hydroelectric wealth. I don't know if you realize this, but a country is about far more than money. Aside from that, you're overstating Quebec's current wealth from hydroelectric and mineral resources. The per capita GDP of Quebec is less than half that of Alberta. I'm really willing to try my luck without them. That's fine, you can always leave. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I don't know if you realize this, but a country is about far more than money. Aside from that, you're overstating Quebec's current wealth from hydroelectric and mineral resources. The per capita GDP of Quebec is less than half that of Alberta. That's fine, you can always leave. I was a member of the Albera separation party. When we succeed, you will suffer. Edited April 12, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
g_bambino Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Including the Clarity Act. Well, no; the Clarity Act isn't a part of the constitution. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Well, no; the Clarity Act isn't a part of the constitution. But the Canadian Constitution is sort of out there in the nether regions, according to the constitutional experts on this forum. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
expat voter Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I have long wished for another referendum, and have sworn a solem oath that if one comes, I will go to Quebec to lobby for a yes vote. Save your money and the greenhouse gases, you can lobby for a yes vote by being close-minded from home. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I was a member of the Albera separation party. When we succeed, you will suffer. If you leave, it won't really affect me much in any way...but you'll never succeed. I respect Alberta separatists far less than Quebec separatists. At least Quebecers have a legitimate grievance (they actually are somewhat difference in terms of language and culture). All Alberta separatists care about is money. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 But the Canadian Constitution is sort of out there in the nether regions, according to the constitutional experts on this forum. Who said that? The Constitution of Canada is a powerful document that administers the way our country is governed. There's nothing out there about it. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Save your money and the greenhouse gases, you can lobby for a yes vote by being close-minded from home. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) Who said that? The Constitution of Canada is a powerful document that administers the way our country is governed. There's nothing out there about it. As I said in another thread, we have the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is it. We do not have a "constitution" as such. The other super intellectual posters told me that our constitution is some kind of etherial wonderkinder kind of thing that we all suck up to. Fools. Edited April 12, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 As I said in another thread, we have the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is it. We do not have a "constitution" as such. The other super intellectual posters told me that our constitution is some kind of etherial wonderkinder kind of thing that we all suck up to. Fools. No, that isn't all we have. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html The written component is only part of things though. The other parts of the Constitution come from long standing laws and traditions that have existed long before Canada did. We use what is perhaps the most successful governing system even invented, and you say we're fools because of it. Perhaps we're not the fools. Quote
RNG Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 No, that isn't all we have. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html The written component is only part of things though. The other parts of the Constitution come from long standing laws and traditions that have existed long before Canada did. We use what is perhaps the most successful governing system even invented, and you say we're fools because of it. Perhaps we're not the fools. I's sooner rest my good life on some solid ground rather than nebulous "precedent" that any activist judge can interpret however he/she wishes. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Handsome Rob Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 In theory, I like that idea a lot. I wonder about the practicalities of it though. The logistics and expense are one concern, but the biggest one, IMO would be getting people to actually DO it. We have enough trouble getting people to come out to vote. If we ask them to do it twice per election, I fear turnout might drop even further. Twice per ballot. Not hard to count ballots twice. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I's sooner rest my good life on some solid ground rather than nebulous "precedent" that any activist judge can interpret however he/she wishes. You have no idea what you're talking about, that much is clear. Quote
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.