Conservaphobia

[caesar]

It is ridiculous taking of separating. Canada as a whole is considered a small country when it comes to trade. We always get the short end of the stick in trade issues with the USA. A Western country separated from the rest of Canada we would have no clout at all.

No one with half a brain wants to join the USA in their present state. They invaded a country without cause; they ignored the

Geneva convention. Finally their own courts are putting an end to Bush's unlawful treatment of prisoners being held in Cuba and Iraq.

Canadians voted for the Liberals as they are not ready to join the USA and rebuild that relationship closer; at this time. Many will not give that reason; as when we criticize the USA it is always interpreted as anti American. How come we can criticize our own government and not then be called anti Canadian.

[Stoker]

It is ridiculous taking of separating. Canada as a whole is considered a small country when it comes to trade. We always get the short end of the stick in trade issues with the USA. A Western country separated from the rest of Canada we would have no clout at all.

A Western country separated from the rest of Canada would have one of the worlds's largest Oil reserves, and without Eastern Buggery.......

No one with half a brain wants to join the USA in their present state. They invaded a country without cause; they ignored the

Geneva convention. Finally their own courts are putting an end to Bush's unlawful treatment of prisoners being held in Cuba and Iraq.

Who said anything about joining the Yanks? I'd be all for having better relations, but not joining them.......

Canadians voted for the Liberals as they are not ready to join the USA and rebuild that relationship closer; at this time. Many will not give that reason; as when we criticize the USA it is always interpreted as anti American. How come we can criticize our own government and not then be called anti Canadian.

Again, I don't know anybody saying the west should join the states......

[caesar]

We do not want closer relations with the USA until that country becomes more credible and obeys international law. They do not even honour NAFTA decisions.

Why do you think Harper wanted Transport planes for; to send out troops to wars; to help our "American Friends".

No thanks, we didn't agree with the Iraq invasion and we soundly criticized by Bush and Co for making a decision not similar to theirs. That is our choice and our right. Canada took the high road and have been shown to have been correct.

When the USA returns to a law abiding; humanitarian and honest and fair trading partner; let them make the first move. An apology would be in order.

[taxedman]

Separation? Who wants to separate? People in the West are tired of no say in this DEMOCRATIC country. Quebec wants to look after its' own affairs that concern Quebecers. I think the solution to this problem is having a Triple E Senate. NOT a Dictatorship that we have had for so long. A Country the area size of Canada shouldn't be controlled by an overpopulated centre like Ontario (Toronto). A Triple E Senate would elevate many of the problems that we have with alienation across this country, but it comes down to a gov't doing what's right for the country as a whole.

[takeanumber]

People in the West are tired of no say in this DEMOCRATIC country

THE MAJORITY SAID 'NO' TO HARPER.

THAT IS DEMOCRACY.

Besides, the NDP got 16% of the popular vote, 7% of the seats. I suppose you'd call that Democracy too.

Face it. The West refused to compromise.

And with that attitude, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Winnepeg, and BC wern't going to bend.

Why should Alberta be allowed to dictate how the rest of the country should live? Last time I checked, Ontario had 108 seats. 25 of them said yes to the Cons (I'll leave the vote splitting issue behind), the rest said no.

Suck it up.

[playfullfellow]

It is ridiculous taking of separating. Canada as a whole is considered a small country when it comes to trade. We always get the short end of the stick in trade issues with the USA. A Western country separated from the rest of Canada we would have no clout at all.

We do not always get the short end of the stick in trade disputes. The only dispute that the US has not immidiately backed off on is the softwood lumber issue. Right now the US could not care less if their decision hurts us. We made them mad as hell when we didn't at least morally back them. And in all honesty, why should they? Would Canada back off automatically if we lost a dispute in a similar situation? Probably would depend on who got paid the most.

[Stoker]

And with that attitude, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Winnepeg, and BC wern't going to bend.

Why should Alberta be allowed to dictate how the rest of the country should live? Last time I checked, Ontario had 108 seats. 25 of them said yes to the Cons (I'll leave the vote splitting issue behind), the rest said no.

Suck it up.

Tell me what reasons Quebec and the West should stay in confederation........please I beg of you

[Michael Hardner]

BD:

A democracy should involve a system of government that represents the beliefs and values of the majority of its citizens. The current system doesn't do that, which is why most democractic nations long ago abandoned or never adopted first past the post systems.

This all sounds great, but similar arguments could be used to justify referrenda et al.

First-past-the-post system distorts election results (i.e., a party’s portion of seats may be significantly different from their portion of the popular vote), which usually results in phony majority governments (i.e., one party will have a majority of seats, despite failing to win a majority of the popular vote).

If you supported democracy, you'd support a fair system of representation.

We essentially have three main parties with the top two almost NEVER having 50% of the vote.

When considering the Canadian political topology, PR would guarantee the NDP the balance of power almost every time.

That's too much power for the NDP, given their support levels.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why PR would be the death knell for the Cons or other right-wing parties.

It wouldn't, but it would give the NDP too much power, and quite likely result in NDP-Liberal coalition after NDP-Liberal coalition.

PR works in a lot of countries that have many parties, but even then their governments are constantly building and losing coalitions.

I'd rather have the vision of one leader followed through for a few years.

How is the increased represntation offered by PR "tyrrany"?

As I said, the NDP-Liberal axis would dominate federal politics.

If anything, the current system is a recipe for tyranny (as an Albertan, I know whereof I speak).

If the Cons had a Francophone leader, and had dropped the social stuff, they would be in office now, with a majority IMO.

[taxedman]

SUCK IT UP?

What a pathetic typical arrogant statement. Fuddle Duddle to you too pal!

It's stupid statements like that, that definitely solve issues. As long as you get what you want, the hell with everyone else, right? What we have been saying across this country is that there are problems that need to be addressed. People like you could care less, but, by gawd you would be one of the first to bitch and complain if things weren't going your way!

[takeanumber]

The Majority has spoken.

Suck it up cupcake.

If you want to seperate, move to the US or Austria.

Don't take the country with you.

[taxedman]

Ya, pantywaist, you wouldn't want your silverspoon pulled from your suckling mouth.

[Stoker]

The Majority has spoken.

Suck it up cupcake.

If you want to seperate, move to the US or Austria.

Don't take the country with you.

Again, why should we "suck it up"? You don't have reason now do you When Quebec leaves, will you Suck It.....

up?

[takeanumber]

If Quebec leaves, Canada goes on.

Maybe we can actually get a constitution and senate reform that way. That would be cool.

And we'd have actual elections again.

Now if Alberta leaves, lol, well, I think Canada would be worse off. But Canada would go on.

you should suck it up because Canada decided. 2 in 3 said 'no' to your party.

I'm happy that you're not insulting the people of Ontario like ppl in Calgary are, so that's nice to see.

It's their vote too.

[caesar]

It was not so much an East West vote as a city/ rural vote. Not very many Conservative voters in the cities. Liberals probably lost many votes thanks to Gordon Campbell. Campbell is right winged just like Harper but some people don't really understand that.the federal Liberals are very different from the Provincial Liberals. Joe Clarke's Conservatives are much different than the Harper gang. Clark type of Conservatives may have garnered more votes. A Brian Mulroney we don't need again.

[taxedman]

Questioning why Ontario continues to vote in a bunch of liars isn't insulting the voters of Ontario. Voting in this pack of liars IS insulting.

[takeanumber]

Questioning why Ontario continues to vote in a bunch of liars isn't insulting the voters of Ontario. Voting in this pack of liars IS insulting.

No wonder 2/3 of Ontarians don't like Cons, with attitudes like that..

What does that say about cons? That they'd rather elect corrupt liars to keep con ppl out.

lol.

[taxedman]

Gee, I hadn't considered that angle. Would they do that? I had thought they believed all the lies because the 'hold all that is precious' Liberals wouldn't dare lie to their beloved subjects.

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, this is just the kind of thread I love to read the day before Canada Day, a few extremists from Alberta and BC trying to tear the country apart because they don't fit in.

Tell me, taxedman....When BC and Alberta split away from the rest of Canada are you going to, in turn, allow ridings that want to stay in Canada or form their own little countries to do so?

[caesar]

Rev; don't include BC in that separation talk; that is not a normal outlook here. We wouldn't want to be at the mercy of our own lying, crooked politicians. The conservatives don't play a part in BC provincial elections. We have our own right wing Liberals which I feel confident we will give the boot come next election.

These Liberals claimed the NDP were wasting our money but the Liberals despite selling off our BC Assets; hydro (partial), ferries, BC Rail, etc have allowed our deficit to grow. Our medical premiums have risen; seniors co cost for prescriptions have sky rocketed, Despite these increased costs to consumers; waiting times for medical care have greatly increased. Private clinics do exist. We do not want our private clinics dismantled as it may be our only route to get medical help we need.

BC does have lots of money to spend on improving roads to a ski village; a top of the line RAV line to the airport ( going for 3rd vote soon after being denied 2x). If it is for the olympics; we have money to spend. If it is for Health care, schools, or children's ministries; we don't have the money. Yeah right.

These BC Liberals have the same ideas and outlook as do the federal Conservatives.

[Argus]

First-past-the-post system distorts election results (i.e., a party’s portion of seats may be significantly different from their portion of the popular vote), which usually results in phony majority governments (i.e., one party will have a majority of seats, despite failing to win a majority of the popular vote).

If you supported democracy, you'd support a fair system of representation.

Let's see, the Conservatives got slightly less than 1/3 of the votes and they have slightly less than 1/3 the seats. The Liberals got a bit less than 40% of the vote and they have a bit less than 40% of the seats. So what's your problem again?

What PR does is give extraordinary powers to tiny, fringe parties who might only represent 1-2% of the population. But in the ever present minority scrambling for support they can force the government to pass laws which satisfy them. You see this a low in Israel, for example. It is no more democratic than the present system. It simply has different faults.

[Argus]

It is ridiculous taking of separating.  Canada as a whole is considered a small country when it comes to trade.  We always get the short end of the stick in trade issues with the USA.

Canada is not really small at all. Take a look at some of the succesful European countries, particularly the nordic countries, which have a fifth or a sixth our population.

I think that the West and East are evolving into different cultures, much as French Canada and English Canada have evolved into different cultures.

This is by no means an absolute, but people in central Canada tend to be far more secure with big government telling them what to do, far more obedient to government, willing and expecting government to solve their problems for them, accepting that government knows better than they.

They're far more amenable to subliminating their own culture, if that's the right word, for the benefit of newcomers, minorities, etc. Politically this makes them far more left than most other North Americans - or anyone, really.

For example, gay marriage has become almost a lynchpin of civilization to the Central Canada media, academic, artistic, political and legal community. If you're not for gay marriage then you're some kind of vicious, homophobic dinosaur.

Never mind that the entire rest of the world thinks it's a dumb idea, and disagree. You won't find gay marriage in Sweden or Switzerland or France, but that's beside the point, right? If you're not for it, you're evil. I think the leftist/socialist fabric of central Canada is extraordinarily intollerant of those with differant political viewpoints, and getting worse every year. You can see it even on this board, where insults are not the norm. There's a tendency to sneer at conservatives as hicks and rednecks who aren't properly "enlightened" and "sophisticated" like urbanites in central Canada imagine themselves to be. There's also a strong tendency to impute moral inferiority to conservatives for believing in different methods of governing. Conservatives are "dangerous" and "suspicious" because of their shady motives. They want to destroy our social institutions and safety net because, well... well, because they're conservatives. And you know how evil they are!

The West is still much like Canada used to be; independant, self reliant, believing in individual rights and responsibilties, smaller government which will interfere less in people's lives, proud of their culture and values and not afraid to say that they're the best in the world (You'll never catch someone from Toronto saying Canada's home-grown culture is better than say, India's or Pakistan's or Iran's). I think Westerners generally have more confidence in themselves.

I don't know if this value chasm will continue to grow worse. If it does you could well see a growing desire to seperate. Especially with the growing amount of contempt heaped upon them by the leftists in the East simply for having different beliefs (oddly, the same leftists are fiercly protective of different foreign beliefs, even if they're extraodinarily bigoted, sexist, or violent).

[Argus]

We do not want closer relations with the USA until that country becomes more credible and obeys international law. They do not even honour NAFTA decisions.

Why

Another growing difference between east and west is this growing idiotic fixation on hating america and on pretending we have some kind of higher morality. It's hypocritical and stupid and has no relation to reality, and I think the West hasn't much bought into it.

The same people who can't ever stop talking about how evil the US, and would probably take every opportunity to criticise American policy to any American they come across are quite content with what the Chinese or Indians or Syrians or Russians or Egyptians or Kenyans or Indonesians are doing, and couldn't imagine going out to protest or demonstrate if their leaders visited.

They're the same people who used the prison abuse in Baghdad as a general indictment of American society and government, then earnestly point out, every time some terrorist group beheads another innocent hostage, that this in no way reflects Arab or Muslim sentiment or culture.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus:

Some excellent points here.

I think that the West and East are evolving into different cultures, much as French Canada and English Canada have evolved into different cultures.

The more I think of it, the more I agree with Adam Vaughn (CITY TV) who ascribes it to rural-urban differences. The cities are becoming more ethnically diverse, more .. uh ... gay and have crumbling infrastructure. The people who live there have to adapt to living very close to each other, and to constantly changing regulations.

It makes for an urban community that has a different attitude towards government.

We also saw the urban-rural split in the results of the American federal election of 2000.

This is by no means an absolute, but people in central Canada tend to be far more secure with big government telling them what to do, far more obedient to government, willing and expecting government to solve their problems for them, accepting that government knows better than they.

In the cities, yes. In the cities, people depend on the government quite heavily for security, transportation, housing control and even entertainment - not so much in the rural areas.

They're far more amenable to subliminating their own culture, if that's the right word, for the benefit of newcomers, minorities, etc. Politically this makes them far more left than most other North Americans - or anyone, really.

I think city dwellers probably are just used to the influx by now.

Even my old uncle in the city, who was a bit of a racist, had his Indian and Pakistani friends. ("That guy's OK", he would say of them.)

For example, gay marriage has become almost a lynchpin of civilization to the Central Canada media, academic, artistic, political and legal community. If you're not for gay marriage then you're some kind of vicious, homophobic dinosaur.

Again, this applies to the city. Pride day has become the most festive summer celebration that Toronto has..

Never mind that the entire rest of the world thinks it's a dumb idea, and disagree. You won't find gay marriage in Sweden or Switzerland or France, but that's beside the point, right? If you're not for it, you're evil. I think the leftist/socialist fabric of central Canada is extraordinarily intollerant of those with differant political viewpoints, and getting worse every year. You can see it even on this board, where insults are not the norm. There's a tendency to sneer at conservatives as hicks and rednecks who aren't properly "enlightened" and "sophisticated" like urbanites in central Canada imagine themselves to be. There's also a strong tendency to impute moral inferiority to conservatives for believing in different methods of governing. Conservatives are "dangerous" and "suspicious" because of their shady motives. They want to destroy our social institutions and safety net because, well... well, because they're conservatives. And you know how evil they are!

I don't know about the "hicks and rednecks" angle, but I agree with you that people shouldn't show intolerance towards other people's acceptance or rejection of homosexual acts. If you were brought up believing it was wrong, I don't think anyone can demand that you change your views.

But as the bible says, you should hate the sin but love the sinner. If people are going to use their religion as a justification for their beliefs, then they should stick to it as it is written.

The West is still much like Canada used to be; independant, self reliant, believing in individual rights and responsibilties, smaller government which will interfere less in people's lives, proud of their culture and values and not afraid to say that they're the best in the world (You'll never catch someone from Toronto saying Canada's home-grown culture is better than say, India's or Pakistan's or Iran's). I think Westerners generally have more confidence in themselves.

I don't know if this value chasm will continue to grow worse. If it does you could well see a growing desire to seperate. Especially with the growing amount of contempt heaped upon them by the leftists in the East simply for having different beliefs (oddly, the same leftists are fiercly protective of different foreign beliefs, even if they're extraodinarily bigoted, sexist, or violent).

It's not that big a chasm, really. The differences lie in a few relatively insignificant issues: whether an ethnic festival gets funded by the government, whether gay marriage is called marriage or civil union.

The positions on both sides are definitely entrenched, but they're not that far apart really. Certainly not worth splitting the country over it.

Another growing difference between east and west is this growing idiotic fixation on hating america and on pretending we have some kind of higher morality. It's hypocritical and stupid and has no relation to reality, and I think the West hasn't much bought into it.

The same people who can't ever stop talking about how evil the US, and would probably take every opportunity to criticise American policy to any American they come across are quite content with what the Chinese or Indians or Syrians or Russians or Egyptians or Kenyans or Indonesians are doing, and couldn't imagine going out to protest or demonstrate if their leaders visited.

They're the same people who used the prison abuse in Baghdad as a general indictment of American society and government, then earnestly point out, every time some terrorist group beheads another innocent hostage, that this in no way reflects Arab or Muslim sentiment or culture.

Well, the terrorist groups are criminals, so we should be holding the US to a higher order of behavior.

But I agree with you in general here. I think people are condemning the US based on past mistakes rather than what is currently going on.

And as you pointed out, there are worse offenders.

[Black Dog]

It happens that the most seats (and even votes) are in the Eastern region so the Eastern Party wins.

PR wouldn't change this but it would make our current election result more or less permanent. Always a minority.

First, PR simply ensures that the number of seats a party receives reflects the percentage of the votes it got. No distortions like what we see now where the three "regional" parties all recieved more seats than they should have.

As for the permenant minority: why is that a bad thing? Again: compromise, negotiation and cooperation are necessities of coalition governments and are also hallmarks of a healthy democracy in which the views of all constiuents are heard. The current system ensures that the view of the party with the most votes carries the hammer. FPP is why we've been long saddled with falso majority governments that are out of touch and rife with corruption.

This all sounds great, but similar arguments could be used to justify referrenda et al.

Referendums are acostly and inefficient way to govern. PR is used 75 democratic nations, including most of Europe and the rest of the Americas.

That said: I think any system would be better than the one we have.

When considering the Canadian political topology, PR would guarantee the NDP the balance of power almost every time.

That's too much power for the NDP, given their support levels.

Power would reflect levels of support. A party that gets 40 per cent of the vote would get 40 per cent of the seats. It's perfectly fair.

It wouldn't, but it would give the NDP too much power, and quite likely result in NDP-Liberal coalition after NDP-Liberal coalition.

So, rather than have a system that actual reflects what Canadians want in government, you'd rather maintain one that props up a weak regional party in the interests of political diversity.

And I completely fail to see how having a seat count that reflects the support a party has can be construed as "too much power".

PR works in a lot of countries that have many parties, but even then their governments are constantly building and losing coalitions.

Again: so?

I'd rather have the vision of one leader followed through for a few years.

Like Paul Martin? Blech.

If the Cons had a Francophone leader, and had dropped the social stuff, they would be in office now, with a majority IMO.

If the Cons had a Francophone leader, and had dropped the social stuff, they wouldn't be the Cons, but the old PCs.

Let's see, the Conservatives got slightly less than 1/3 of the votes and they have slightly less than 1/3 the seats. The Liberals got a bit less than 40% of the vote and they have a bit less than 40% of the seats. So what's your problem again?

This election was an anomaly in terms of the seats almost reflecting popular suport. But that doesn't tell the whole story as regional voting patterns are grossly exaggerated by FPP (the NDP and Liberals combined for almost 50 per cent of the vote in Alberta, yet recieved just two seats across the province.)

What PR does is give extraordinary powers to tiny, fringe parties who might only represent 1-2% of the population. But in the ever present minority scrambling for support they can force the government to pass laws which satisfy them. You see this a low in Israel, for example. It is no more democratic than the present system. It simply has different faults.

Tiny, fringe parties with 1 or 2 per cent of the vote would have 1 or 2 per cent of the representation. Sounds fair and certainly not "extraordinary".

As I said, PR is in place in most democracies, including some of the more successful nations of the western world. Countries using PR also match and often exceed the economic and social performance of nations run by single party governments.

I find it fascinating that people bitch incessantly about the West not getting a voice, yet would rather live under a de facto dictatorship than risk minority governments.

I think that the West and East are evolving into different cultures, much as French Canada and English Canada have evolved into different cultures.

Not true. There's roughly one NDP or Liberal supporter in the West for every CPC supporter. The "cultural differences" have a tendency to be grossly exaggerated.

This is by no means an absolute, but people in central Canada tend to be far more secure with big government telling them what to do, far more obedient to government, willing and expecting government to solve their problems for them, accepting that government knows better than they.

They're far more amenable to subliminating their own culture, if that's the right word, for the benefit of newcomers, minorities, etc. Politically this makes them far more left than most other North Americans - or anyone, really.

Case in point. Of course, never mind the fact that Albertans, for example, as much as any other are willing to nose up to the public teat when times are tough (see BSE, the drought)...

For example, gay marriage has become almost a lynchpin of civilization to the Central Canada media, academic, artistic, political and legal community. If you're not for gay marriage then you're some kind of vicious, homophobic dinosaur.

The gay marriage issue has been fueled as much by its opponents as it s supporters. What's so wrong with equality?

Never mind that the entire rest of the world thinks it's a dumb idea, and disagree. You won't find gay marriage in Sweden or Switzerland or France, but that's beside the point, right?

Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) The Netherlands and Belgium have also opened marriage to same-sex couples.

There's a tendency to sneer at conservatives as hicks and rednecks who aren't properly "enlightened" and "sophisticated" like urbanites in central Canada imagine themselves to be.

Talk about a culture of victims. Perhaps Albertans and other westerners should ask where this sterotype comes from (hint: Stock Day, Myron Thompson, Larry Spencer, ETC.) That's not to say the East doesn't have its share of kooks and bigots, but in the west, such traits are deemed virtues by many.

Conservatives are "dangerous" and "suspicious" because of their shady motives. They want to destroy our social institutions and safety net because, well... well, because they're conservatives.

Well, gee, why woukld people think cutting programs and taxes is part of a conservative ideaology? Could it be because cutting programs, services and taxes has been at the forefront of every conservative government?

The West is still much like Canada used to be; independant, self reliant, believing in individual rights and responsibilties, smaller government which will interfere less in people's lives, proud of their culture and values and not afraid to say that they're the best in the world (You'll never catch someone from Toronto saying Canada's home-grown culture is better than say, India's or Pakistan's or Iran's). I think Westerners generally have more confidence in themselves

Ah yes: the nostalgic, sepia-toned look at a Canada that only ever existed in people's minds. Tinged, of course, with a little overgeneralization impunging the patriotism of anyone who doesn't follow the conservative party line.

The same people who can't ever stop talking about how evil the US, and would probably take every opportunity to criticise American policy to any American they come across are quite content with what the Chinese or Indians or Syrians or Russians or Egyptians or Kenyans or Indonesians are doing, and couldn't imagine going out to protest or demonstrate if their leaders visited.

You sure love straw men don't you? I remember the APAC protests a few years ago when thousands came out to protest our governments' cozying up to Indonesia's Suharto's, on eof history's bloodiest dictators.

People who make generalizations like the above are deluded by a mass media that doesn't publicize the countless acts of protest and good works that the activist left in Canada does all the time. The only time these works get noticed is when there's the potential for dramatic photos of riot cops facing down college kids.

They're the same people who used the prison abuse in Baghdad as a general indictment of American society and government, then earnestly point out, every time some terrorist group beheads another innocent hostage, that this in no way reflects Arab or Muslim sentiment or culture

Examples please?

[Michael Hardner]

Referendums are acostly and inefficient way to govern.

I see. So referendums are ruled out because they're impractical.

So when should we consider the practical and when the ideal ? When it suits the NDP apparently.

That said: I think any system would be better than the one we have.

This system has produced a pretty good result. Why attempt radical reconstruction ? It will disturb people and further erode public trust in government.

Power would reflect levels of support. A party that gets 40 per cent of the vote would get 40 per cent of the seats. It's perfectly fair.

But the NDP, at 20%, would shape policy 100% of the time. Is that fair ?

So, rather than have a system that actual reflects what Canadians want in government, you'd rather maintain one that props up a weak regional party in the interests of political diversity.

The first part of that sentence deals again in the ideal, and the last part deals with the practical.

If you want to go 100% practical or 100% ideal in your reasoning, then ok. But you can't flip between the two when it suits your argument.

The practical result of PR would be the NDP holding the balance of power 100% of the time in practice.

And I completely fail to see how having a seat count that reflects the support a party has can be construed as "too much power".

A party with 20% of the vote holding the balance of power 100% of the time is too much power.

A party with 30% of the vote never getting into office is too little power.

Again: so?

Well, it's good to know that you're willing to take a gamble on throwing out our entire way of governing because it works elsewhere. I'm not.

Even Layton would probably only want to implement partial PR.

Like Paul Martin? Blech.

If you think that Canada has a good way of life, then you do have the Liberal Party of Canada to thank for about 80% of that. The conservatives, reform and NDP contributed the other 20%.

If the Cons had a Francophone leader, and had dropped the social stuff, they wouldn't be the Cons, but the old PCs.

Exactly. The PCs were a true national party capable of winning elections every few years or so.