Who to vote for?

[ToadBrother]

I can't emphasize enough how much this point is actually a huge reason why my Conservative support is so strong right now. They found a way in a minority to stand up to the parties that lost. The constant complaining of "but you can't do that" only serves to make me like it more. Other minority governments have been timid and far too accommodating to the opposition. This one ruled like it had a majority anyway, it shows strength and leadership.

"I don't care that you guys have more members in the house than I do, I'm the Prime Minister, and this is how it's going to be". That's balls, and that's what I want from my leader.

He didn't find a way to do anything. He brought his government down because he defied a basic constitutional tenet that says "Parliament's command and power over the Government is limitless."

Perhaps you're from a different planet, but on the planet I'm from, Parliament won this fight centuries ago. But tell me, do you think Parliamentary supremacy is bad?

Edited April 15, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bryan]

He didn't find a way to do anything. He brought his government down because he defied a basic constitutional tenet that says "Parliament's command and power over the Government is limitless."

And yet, come May 3, he's still going to be the Prime Minister, so all of it will have just been window dressing.

But tell me, do you think Parliamentary supremacy is bad?

When it allows the losers to dictate policy and procedure to the winner, yes.

[Harry]

*

Edited April 15, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

And yet, come May 3, he's still going to be the Prime Minister, so all of it will have just been window dressing.

When it allows the losers to dictate policy and procedure to the winner, yes.

Using your absurd definition of losers more than 62% of Canadians supported losers in the last election. Maybe that loser majority should have some say - yes?

Don't worry Harper will probably get first kick at the can at least until the vote on the Throne Speech and then it is going to be bye, bye.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Harry

[Bryan]

Using your absurd definition of losers more than 62% of Canadians supported losers in the last election. Maybe that loser majority should have some say - yes?

There is no 62%

It was 38% - 26% voting percentage and 143-77 seats between the guys actually running for PM. Almost twice as many seats as the next closest guy. There were also other losers who were never in the running did even worse.

[Handsome Rob]

In the same boat Scouter Jim.

My Riding:

Liberal - 40% - Candidate Not favored.

Conservative - 40% - Candidate favored.

NDP - 20% - New Candidate, but she looks good.

Not exact number, don't want to disclose my exact residence on the internet, but the margins are correct.

Governments I would vote for:

1) Conservative (Minority)

2) NDP (Never Happen)

3) Conservative (Majority)

4) Current Liberal Party

Green et all are irrelevant here, little point in including them.

I would ordinarily vote Tory, but am kind of disgusted at what they are doing, and fear the slim chance of a Harper Majority.

The NDP has no chance this time around, but I think she'll do well and be a force in the next one. I don't support most things the NDP stands for besides how they conduct their affairs.

The Liberals stand to get eradicated here, he is not favored, his traditional ethnic vote has publicly endorsed the Tory candidate.

I've never voted NDP but I might. On the other hand I may vote Tory just to guarantee the Liberals don't keep the riding.

[WWWTT]

Ok scouterjim if you don't like what you see then run for office yourself.

Good luck

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

And yet, come May 3, he's still going to be the Prime Minister, so all of it will have just been window dressing.

There are even odds he won't be PM much past June.

When it allows the losers to dictate policy and procedure to the winner, yes.

Can you define "loser" here? The Tories got less than half the seats in the House, they received less than 40% of the popular vote, and yet you have no problem with a party unable to reach the majority mark dictating policy.

But really, that's a side show. I asked a pretty reasonable and simple question, and you evaded with a red herring. The constitution isn't built on the notion of parties in any meaningful, it's built on who controls the House of Commons. You can call the Opposition "losers", but constitutionally, they outnumber the government members.

So I'll ask again, do you think that Parliamentary supremacy over the Government is a bad thing?

[ToadBrother]

There is no 62%

It was 38% - 26% voting percentage and 143-77 seats between the guys actually running for PM. Almost twice as many seats as the next closest guy. There were also other losers who were never in the running did even worse.

The numbers are rather irrelevant to the constitutional question.

[blueblood]

In the same boat Scouter Jim.

My Riding:

Liberal - 40% - Candidate Not favored.

Conservative - 40% - Candidate favored.

NDP - 20% - New Candidate, but she looks good.

Not exact number, don't want to disclose my exact residence on the internet, but the margins are correct.

Governments I would vote for:

1) Conservative (Minority)

2) NDP (Never Happen)

3) Conservative (Majority)

4) Current Liberal Party

Green et all are irrelevant here, little point in including them.

I would ordinarily vote Tory, but am kind of disgusted at what they are doing, and fear the slim chance of a Harper Majority.

The NDP has no chance this time around, but I think she'll do well and be a force in the next one. I don't support most things the NDP stands for besides how they conduct their affairs.

The Liberals stand to get eradicated here, he is not favored, his traditional ethnic vote has publicly endorsed the Tory candidate.

I've never voted NDP but I might. On the other hand I may vote Tory just to guarantee the Liberals don't keep the riding.

What's all this fear about a majority? Cripes the tories have another election to win four years down the road. Why would they do something "scary" only to get annhilated at the polls. there's better things to vote for someone else than "they might get a majority". There is also the constitution to consider as well.

[Handsome Rob]

What's all this fear about a majority? Cripes the tories have another election to win four years down the road. Why would they do something "scary" only to get annhilated at the polls. there's better things to vote for someone else than "they might get a majority". There is also the constitution to consider as well.

It's a scale, but the long term possibilities if worst case fear mongering come true:

Potential Pros:

-Kill the gun registry. Won't be missed.

-Reform the senate. Ought to be looked at in the very least.

-Gut the CBC. At least scare them into taking a neutral position.

-Continue to rebuild the military.

Potential Cons:

-Screw with Canadian healthcare. I don't believe he could improve it from it's present dismal state.

-Mandatory minimums, taking prison sentencing from way too weak to way too strong.

-Furthering the war on drugs.

-Increase ties with the yanks. I'm not an anti-american guy, but our hips are attached to their ankles enough.

I'm an undereducated voter, not quite uneducated like what I would call average in Canada, well maybe don't care is a better word. One of the reasons I often read this site but don't post much without elections.

But these are some of the things I think about, and thinking in those terms the potential pro's are a better alternative to the potential con's. I was more than happy with the Conservative-Liberal coalition, and I really wish we weren't having this election.

[WWWTT]

What's all this fear about a majority? Cripes the tories have another election to win four years down the road. Why would they do something "scary" only to get annhilated at the polls. there's better things to vote for someone else than "they might get a majority". There is also the constitution to consider as well.

Whats all this fear about an NDP Bloq and Liberal coalition.

They only recieved 60%+ of the Canadian votes cmpared to Harpers 30 something.

It will be over soon bluelood,your just making it harder for yourself

WWWTT

[Bryan]

So I'll ask again, do you think that Parliamentary supremacy over the Government is a bad thing?

I already answered that. When it allows the losers to interfere with the governance by the winner, yes I do think is a bad thing.

[kimmy]

"Who to vote for?" and "Who do I want to win?" are two different questions.

I live in a riding where the CPC candidate will win by a huge margin regardless of who I vote for.

Last election, I voted for the local Green Party candidate, because I thought she was a promising young individual and I wanted her to at least win her election deposit back. She did better than that, finishing in virtually a 3-way tie with the NDP and Liberal candidates. She went on to win a seat on city council since then.

This election I will once again vote for whichever candidate I find most worth, regardless of their party. The Conservative candidate will, once again, win in a landslide. I have met him. I was in a photo-op he did to highlight "stimulus" funds that were being dispersed at a project my employer was working on. Didn't really care for it. Didn't really care for the whole stimulus thing, although that's not his fault.

I'm strongly leaning toward my local Liberal, who seems like somebody I would probably really admire if I knew her.

-k

[blueblood]

Whats all this fear about an NDP Bloq and Liberal coalition.

They only recieved 60%+ of the Canadian votes cmpared to Harpers 30 something.

It will be over soon bluelood,your just making it harder for yourself

WWWTT

Simple, the fact that our economy could take a bath and we have the days of trudeau spending. That's something that can't be cured with an election, that's cured with a decade of tax hikes and slashed spending to pay for it.

And 70 % voted against liberals

80% against the NDP

90% against the bloc

Judging by the polls I'd say the tories get first crack at forming govt.

[blueblood]

It's a scale, but the long term possibilities if worst case fear mongering come true:

Potential Pros:

-Kill the gun registry. Won't be missed.

-Reform the senate. Ought to be looked at in the very least.

-Gut the CBC. At least scare them into taking a neutral position.

-Continue to rebuild the military.

Potential Cons:

-Screw with Canadian healthcare. I don't believe he could improve it from it's present dismal state.

-Mandatory minimums, taking prison sentencing from way too weak to way too strong.

-Furthering the war on drugs.

-Increase ties with the yanks. I'm not an anti-american guy, but our hips are attached to their ankles enough.

I'm an undereducated voter, not quite uneducated like what I would call average in Canada, well maybe don't care is a better word. One of the reasons I often read this site but don't post much without elections.

But these are some of the things I think about, and thinking in those terms the potential pro's are a better alternative to the potential con's. I was more than happy with the Conservative-Liberal coalition, and I really wish we weren't having this election.

Get all the party platforms and match your views to which one comes closest. All parties follow the constitution so the only collosal screw up they can do is in terms of the country's finances.

[Battletoads]

Vote ABC, Anyone but conservative

Vote Liberal

Vote NDP

Vote Green

Vote Christian Heritage

Vote Communist

Vote Bloc

[g_bambino]

I already answered that. When it allows the losers to interfere with the governance by the winner, yes I do think is a bad thing.

Wilful ignorance.

[sp]

Edited April 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[WWWTT]

Simple, the fact that our economy could take a bath and we have the days of trudeau spending. That's something that can't be cured with an election, that's cured with a decade of tax hikes and slashed spending to pay for it.

And 70 % voted against liberals

80% against the NDP

90% against the bloc

Judging by the polls I'd say the tories get first crack at forming govt.

Are you saying that a vote for any particular opposition is a vote against the coalition?

I like your rose colored glasses you whear by the way,they work really well.

You are right about the party with the most votes at getting the first crack,unless a deal is made and the notice of motion is sent to the GG.

Maybe someone here can help here with the details

WWWTT

[fellowtraveller]

Whats all this fear about an NDP Bloq and Liberal coalition.

Each party to a coalition gets something and gives something, or the agreement fails. The NDP and Liberals will get Cabinet seats. Ignatieff cannot give Cabinet seats to a separatist party with the express mandate of dividing Canada, not because it would bother him in any way but because he himself would be lynched from a lamp post and the Liberal Party would be finished permanently in Canada.

So Quebec will get money. Lots and lots and lots of money. Your money. That means that everywhere else will get much less money, despite the Liberal/NDP view that taxpayers have plenty more to give. If Quebec does not get lots of money, the Cooperative will fail and we're back to an election, and Iggy and Layton are back to their lives of medocrity. Where they do belong. Oh, and having the Bloc sitting at the Big Table will absolutely cement their staus indefinitely in Quebec, and further advance the already selfish regionalism that now defines out country.

That is just some of what is at stake here and now. Hope you enjoy our future.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh, and if you think that federal -provincial relations are tough now, watch what happens when Iggy and Crew take over in May/June after they lose the election and gain the country. It will get ugly, and it will stay ugly. We had a strong whiff of reaction in 2008, which led to the rapid ouster of Dion and the equally rapid shunning of coalition talk by Iggy.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Don't vote based on the party or the leader vote on the best candidate in your riding. Read up on their personal views, and stances on issues that are important to you and your community. Are they a long standing member in your community or a parachute in from another area? Have they impacted your community in any way? Yes there are times when individual MP's must tow the party line, but there are also many times when they do not have to do this. Your MP can make an enormous difference in your riding, so base your vote on that. I personally love our current MP in London North Center, Glen Pearson. He's an LPC member but that doesn't really determine my vote, he's done a great job since he was elected and I would still vote for him even if he switched to CPC, or even Green for that matter.

That's the only advice I can offer. If you don't like any of the candidates then you'll have to vote for the rep from the party that you find least objectionable. Better an undesirable choice to none at all.

Unfortunately, most often government M.P.'s must toe the party line, so one really should consider party policy to vote accurately.

[ToadBrother]

Oh, and if you think that federal -provincial relations are tough now, watch what happens when Iggy and Crew take over in May/June after they lose the election and gain the country. It will get ugly, and it will stay ugly. We had a strong whiff of reaction in 2008, which led to the rapid ouster of Dion and the equally rapid shunning of coalition talk by Iggy.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Well yes, but part of that reaction was in Quebec where Harper's anti-Bloc rhetoric caused more than a little anger.

Frankly, I doubt, in terms of Federal-provincial relations, a coalition would mean a damned thing. It certainly wasn't an issue in 2008. I never heard any official statements from the provinces, or even unofficial ones.

[fellowtraveller]

Well yes, but part of that reaction was in Quebec where Harper's anti-Bloc rhetoric caused more than a little anger.

Frankly, I doubt, in terms of Federal-provincial relations, a coalition would mean a damned thing. It certainly wasn't an issue in 2008. I never heard any official statements from the provinces, or even unofficial ones.

Well yes what? You will recall the very intense and very visceral reaction from across Canada, not just Quebec, to news that the results of the election of 2008 were about to be reversed just a few weeks later. Maybe you didn't, but Iggy certainly did- it caused him to take control fo the Party and distance himself far from any colaition talk just as quickly as he possibly could.

And you are utterly wrong about the coming Cooperative having no effect on Federal provincial relations, it would strongly and permanently affect the West and the relations between individuals and their central govt- the bond will be immensely weakened- not that I expect you to give a shit. Iggy backed away last time because he could see the end of the Liberals and no personal cookies for himsef, times were uncertain. He still had hopes that Canadians would find him appealing as a leader and he coul;d walk through the front door as PM. He now knows he is unelectable with a majority govt. He won't be able to resist the temptation to become PM if it is in any way possible now. .

Really tough times ahead for this country I fear. The Quebec Disease of wholesale selfishness is about to go viral and people are going to get hurt and stay hurt, at least economically.

[Smallc]

Based on what, exactly? People getting mad at government? Because that won't last no matter what happens. As for a coalition hurting the economy or provincial relations - no, it won't. There's no reason to believe that it would.