The bravest person in Canada

[Guest American Woman]

Ah...my concession didn't go far enough, and didn't fit prioperly into your determinations!

Actually, AW, you didn't even recognize the obvious--that it was a concession--until it was pointed out to you.

I still don't recognize that it's a concession to what I was refuting - I have clearly admitted that - but I'll take your word for it.

The writing was clear enough; it's your reading that is at issue.

Clear as the Golden Gate Bridge on a foggy day.

When I notice typos after the fact, I edit them.

What awful things do you suppsoe I edited out?

After all, when you quoted me, you quoted me word for word from the unedited version.

Yes? Yes.

Ummm. No. As you yourself pointed out, I didn't quote your whole post - in other words, I didn't quote you word for word.

So what's the problem, AW? What do you suppose I changed?

Who knows? I didn't memorize your post - just noticed that you edited it today. After I had responded to it. Found that interesting ....

Please. You'll note that I don't disingenuously select out of context bits from your post for dishonest purposes.

That's your shtick.

Again, get over the drama queen bit. I quoted the part of your post I was responding to - ie: doing what the rules tell us to do. I can't help but notice that whenever you get defensive the insults start flying. Accuse me of whatever you need to accuse me of in order to get through the day.

Compared to your convoluted and deceptive arguments? Correct.

I rest my case.

[bloodyminded]

I still don't recognize that it's a concession to what I was refuting - I have clearly admitted that - but I'll take your word for it.

Finally.

Ummm. No. As you yourself pointed out, I didn't quote your whole post - in other words, I didn't quote you word for word.

Now you're being disingenuous again, via semantics.

You quoted the passage word for word...and since my post is now edited, you can see for yourself that this passage remains the same as the original.

And you intentionally quoted it out of context.

Who knows? I didn't memorize your post - just noticed that you edited it today. After I had responded to it. Found that interesting ....

Stop insinuating like a douchebag. Make a cocnrete, specific claim, or forget it.

Again, get over the drama queen bit. I quoted the part of your post I was responding to - ie: doing what the rules tell us to do.

Where do the rules tell you to quote me out of context? To attribute my remarks to something that they weren't attributed to, as part of your "argument"?

I can't help but notice that whenever you get defensive the insults start flying. Accuse me of whatever you need to accuse me of in order to get through the day.

I'm not insulting you. I am pointing out the objective truth that you are a dishonest debater. I base this on the facts as we've been discussing them.

The clause you quoted did not mean what you said it did. You know this, because I've proven it.

If you disagree, go ahead and explain yourself.

[edited...for typos, I swear!]

Edited June 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not insulting you. I am pointing out the objective truth that you are a dishonest debater. I base this on the facts as we've been discussing them.

The clause you quoted did not mean what you said it did. You know this, because I've proven it.

Now prove that I knew your post didn't mean what I said I took it to mean - then your insults will have merit. The fact is, you immediately assumed that I purposely misinterpreted your post. Says a lot more about you than it'll ever say about me.

If you disagree, go ahead and explain yourself.

No thanks. I don't feel the need. Just keep throwing in the insults along with your dramatizations as you deem necessary.

[edited...for typos, I swear!]

No need to swear - because editing a post a minute later and editing it the next day when the post is under question are two different things.

Now feel free to go on and on if you must -throwing in as many insults as you like. I'll just bid you a good day.

[g_bambino]

Just keep throwing in the insults along with your dramatizations... Now feel free to go on and on if you must -throwing in as many insults as you like.

Hyp...oc...ricy.

[Guest American Woman]

Hyp...oc...ricy.

I have a suggestion for you, g_bambino .... instead of posting about me all the time with nothing to back it up, report me to the moderators when you see me doing what you are accusing me of. Thanks.

Edited June 10, 2011 by American Woman

[capricorn]

Think about that for a minute. Two million more people voted for the Liberals and NDP combined. Yet, when you add up their seats, they actually hold 29 fewer seats than the Conservatives.

And if you think about it for a minute more, who's to say how things would have turned out if a chunk of the 38% or so no shows had voted. Perhaps we'd be looking at a whole different configuration in the H of C.

[g_bambino]

[R]eport me to the moderators when you see me doing what you are accusing me of.

I don't believe hypocricy is a breach of forum rules.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't believe hypocricy is a breach of forum rules.

No, but throwing insults is, and that's what you're jumping in and accusing me of - without anything to back up your accusations. So report me - or kindly STFU. Thank you again.

Edited June 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Think about that for a minute. Two million more people voted for the Liberals and NDP combined. Yet, when you add up their seats, they actually hold 29 fewer seats than the Conservatives.

I'm curious how that happens - simply put, is it because of the way the two million more votes were spread out - or should I say concentrated? So that the Conservatives won more seats because they ultimately had more majority votes in more ridings/districts?

Edited June 10, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

No, but throwing insulting is, and that's what you're jumping in and accusing me of. So report me - or kindly STFU.

Shouldn't you then be following your own advice and, rather than endlessly and childishly throwing barbed, sarcastic comments at him, either be reporting bloodyminded for insulting you or SingTFU yourself?

[+]

Edited June 10, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Shouldn't you then be following your own advice and, rather than endlessly and childishly throwing barbed, sarcastic comments at him, either be reporting bloodyminded for insulting you or SingTFU yourself?

[+]

I'll choose how to respond to his insults and accusations - and whether the way I respond meets with your approval or not means nothing to me. I repeat for the last time. Either back up your claims, report me, or butt out - because fyi, sarcasm isn't against the rules.

[g_bambino]

I'll choose how to respond to his insults and accusations...

Fair enough. And, likewise, everyone is equally at liberty to respond to your posts in kind.

[Guest American Woman]

Fair enough. And, likewise, everyone is equally at liberty to respond to your posts in kind.

As they do. What they - ie: you - aren't free to do is jump in and make baseless accusations, Capice? - so I'll assume you will take my advice here on in. Once again. Thanks.

[cybercoma]

And if you think about it for a minute more, who's to say how things would have turned out if a chunk of the 38% or so no shows had voted. Perhaps we'd be looking at a whole different configuration in the H of C.

Perhaps we would, but I'm not dealing with hypotheticals. The statistics I posted are facts.

[cybercoma]

I'm curious how that happens - simply put, is it because of the way the two million more votes were spread out - or should I say concentrated? So that the Conservatives won more seats because they ultimately had more majority votes in more ridings/districts?

Each seat will typically have anywhere from 3 to 7 candidates competing for it during the election. The major parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat) will usually run someone in just about every riding, while the rest of the candidates are usually filled out by the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and a combination of minor parties and independents (Green Party, Christian Heritage Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, etc).

A candidate wins the riding when (s)he gets more votes than any other candidate, rather than getting a majority of votes. Someone can win a riding without actually getting 50% or more of the votes in that riding. Let me give an example that could happen in theory, but generally doesn't.

Electoral District Sometown West has 1000 voting constituents. The Liberals are running candidate "LPC", the Conservatives candidate "CPC" and the New Democrats candidate "NDP". On election night the votes are tallied and candidate "NDP" gets 333 votes, candidate "LPC" gets 333 votes and candidate "CPC" gets 334 votes. With 1/3 the vote +1, candidate "CPC" wins the riding. Theoretically, again this never happens in reality, if there were only 3 candidates in every riding by three parties, one of them could actually win 100% of the seats in the House with 1/3 +308 votes.

To answer your question in short. Yes. It's the way the votes are concentrated. The argument many of the die-hard CPC supporters here make is that the Liberals and New Democrats are not the same party. Of course, they're right. That goes without saying. The problem, however, is that those two parties are much closer, regardless of what anyone else says, on the political spectrum than they are to the CPC. The LPC and NDP are both left-wing parties, with the LPC being closer to the a centre. Nevertheless, they take similar positions on the things that Brigette DePape brought up in her press-release: corporate taxes, military expansion and the environment. Those positions are the antithesis of the Conservative position.

So, when Ms. DePape calls upon the electorate to hold the government to task for their decisions, I have to agree with her. The combined number of votes for the NDP and LPC is 2 million votes greater than the number of votes that the CPC received. In other words, there are 2 million more supporters of the types of positions the NDP and LPC have on those particular issues. Again, it's completely irrelevant that the people who vote for those parties may not support them on every issue. If we consider that then we can dismiss every policy of a party on the same grounds. Likewise, we could say supporters of the CPC may support the oppositions policies to strengthen that position. The best gauge we have is to consider how people voted and assume that they voted that way because they support the way that particular party's candidate will vote. Back to the point. The policies of the NDP and LPC are similar in those areas and 2 million MORE people voted for the NDP and LPC.

Now, I'm not saying either the NDP or LPC should be the governing party. That's not the case at all because the CPC did get more votes than either of those parties. However, the number of votes beyond the NDP is not all that much. What I've been trying to argue is that the system is broken because it does not give a fair representation of the political will of Canadians. Harper has a governing mandate, to be sure, but by no means should it be a majority mandate. A majority in parliament means that his party passes every piece of legislation they put forward because the combined votes of the other MPs cannot possibly take it down. Yet, if you look at the combined votes of the electorate that voted against the CPC in the election, they exceed the number of people that voted for a Conservative mandate. So, to be fair, I believe that the combined votes of the members of parliament ought to reflect that.

Does that help any?

[Smallc]

The LPC is not really all that far from the CPC. The difference between Martin and Harper wasn't nearly as big as I expected. Low taxes, and higher military spending were on both men's agendas. There is some social policy difference, but there are also many similarities.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Smallc

[CPCFTW]

Each seat will typically have anywhere from 3 to 7 candidates competing for it during the election. The major parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat) will usually run someone in just about every riding, while the rest of the candidates are usually filled out by the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and a combination of minor parties and independents (Green Party, Christian Heritage Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, etc).

A candidate wins the riding when (s)he gets more votes than any other candidate, rather than getting a majority of votes. Someone can win a riding without actually getting 50% or more of the votes in that riding. Let me give an example that could happen in theory, but generally doesn't.

Electoral District Sometown West has 1000 voting constituents. The Liberals are running candidate "LPC", the Conservatives candidate "CPC" and the New Democrats candidate "NDP". On election night the votes are tallied and candidate "NDP" gets 333 votes, candidate "LPC" gets 333 votes and candidate "CPC" gets 334 votes. With 1/3 the vote +1, candidate "CPC" wins the riding. Theoretically, again this never happens in reality, if there were only 3 candidates in every riding by three parties, one of them could actually win 100% of the seats in the House with 1/3 +308 votes.

To answer your question in short. Yes. It's the way the votes are concentrated. The argument many of the die-hard CPC supporters here make is that the Liberals and New Democrats are not the same party. Of course, they're right. That goes without saying. The problem, however, is that those two parties are much closer, regardless of what anyone else says, on the political spectrum than they are to the CPC. The LPC and NDP are both left-wing parties, with the LPC being closer to the a centre. Nevertheless, they take similar positions on the things that Brigette DePape brought up in her press-release: corporate taxes, military expansion and the environment. Those positions are the antithesis of the Conservative position.

So, when Ms. DePape calls upon the electorate to hold the government to task for their decisions, I have to agree with her. The combined number of votes for the NDP and LPC is 2 million votes greater than the number of votes that the CPC received. In other words, there are 2 million more supporters of the types of positions the NDP and LPC have on those particular issues. Again, it's completely irrelevant that the people who vote for those parties may not support them on every issue. If we consider that then we can dismiss every policy of a party on the same grounds. Likewise, we could say supporters of the CPC may support the oppositions policies to strengthen that position. The best gauge we have is to consider how people voted and assume that they voted that way because they support the way that particular party's candidate will vote. Back to the point. The policies of the NDP and LPC are similar in those areas and 2 million MORE people voted for the NDP and LPC.

Now, I'm not saying either the NDP or LPC should be the governing party. That's not the case at all because the CPC did get more votes than either of those parties. However, the number of votes beyond the NDP is not all that much. What I've been trying to argue is that the system is broken because it does not give a fair representation of the political will of Canadians. Harper has a governing mandate, to be sure, but by no means should it be a majority mandate. A majority in parliament means that his party passes every piece of legislation they put forward because the combined votes of the other MPs cannot possibly take it down. Yet, if you look at the combined votes of the electorate that voted against the CPC in the election, they exceed the number of people that voted for a Conservative mandate. So, to be fair, I believe that the combined votes of the members of parliament ought to reflect that.

Does that help any?

For further clarification, you should also include a hypothetical province with a heavily separatist electorate who have inflated the vote totals of the NDP by voting for children.

You should also include a hypothetical group of ideologues who have suddenly concluded that proportional representation is suddenly necessary now that a conservative government is in power.

Please also include hypothetical election results such as a hypothetical election in 2000 in which a hypothetical PM called "Adscam" won 172 seats with 5.2mil votes while the conservative parties combined for 4.8m votes and 78 seats. Lets not forget another hypothetical election in 1997 in which "Adscam" was again elected with 155 seats and 4.9m votes, compared to 80 seats and 4.95m votes for the conservative parties.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. The only hard evidence we have is the most recent election which proves that the system is broken!

And if my dad taught me anything growing up, it was that if you can't win a game, then just change the rules.

I don't think American woman will need any explanation as to why our system concentrates power into the hands of the governing party given how difficult it is to get anything done in the American system. Our system attempts to avoid the incessant spending to placate opposition parties that would be the hallmark of a proportional representational system.

Lets also not forget that a proportional rep system could conceivably give Quebec separatists the power to hold Canada hostage on many divisive policies (hypothetically of course).

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[bloodyminded]

Now prove that I knew your post didn't mean what I said I took it to mean - then your insults will have merit. The fact is, you immediately assumed that I purposely misinterpreted your post. Says a lot more about you than it'll ever say about me.

You either wilfully misinterpreted it, or you have literacy issues. It's true that my assumption was of the former. It still is.

No thanks. I don't feel the need. Just keep throwing in the insults along with your dramatizations as you deem necessary.

Mmmm. And when you use "drama queen," it's not an insult, but rather a disinterested assessment.

No need to swear - because editing a post a minute later and editing it the next day when the post is under question are two different things.

But what problematizes your greasy little insinuation here is that we have been arguing primarily about the clause you quoted--that you quoted from my earlier post--and it remains word-for-word exactly the same as in the edited one. Go back and check, if this fact is as lost on you as is its significance. You undermine your self here by the unfortunate fact that you quoted my original. Next time you wish to apply a disingenuous argument, you might wish to think a step or two ahead.

Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

For further clarification, you should also include a hypothetical province with a heavily separatist electorate who have inflated the vote totals of the NDP by voting for children.

You should also include a hypothetical group of ideologues who have suddenly concluded that proportional representation is suddenly necessary now that a conservative government is in power.

Please also include hypothetical election results such as a hypothetical election in 2000 in which a hypothetical PM called "Adscam" won 172 seats with 5.2mil votes while the conservative parties combined for 4.8m votes and 78 seats. Lets not forget another hypothetical election in 1997 in which "Adscam" was again elected with 155 seats and 4.9m votes, compared to 80 seats and 4.95m votes for the conservative parties.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. The only hard evidence we have is the most recent election which proves that the system is broken!

And if my dad taught me anything growing up, it was that if you can't win a game, then just change the rules.

It's remarkable that you could quote cybercoma's post in full, respond expansively, and yet not understand a single point he was making. That must take real discipline.

[CPCFTW]

It's remarkable that you could quote cybercoma's post in full, respond expansively, and yet not understand a single point he was making. That must take real discipline.

You mean the point that's only important now that the conservative party is in power? Don't worry I have seen every possible varaiation of this "point".

[Guest American Woman]

You either wilfully misinterpreted it, or you have literacy issues.

Ah yes, the insults continue. If I didn't understand- in a post where you said 'it isn't that the job is more dangerous, it isn't' to mean 'I was wrong when I said the job isn't more dangerous' - evidently it is I who has the problem. It's either/or, just as you stated. It couldn't possibly be that I honestly, with reason, "misinterpreted" it. It couldn't be that there was room for misinterpretation in your post as it was presented. Oh no.

Mmmm. And when you use "drama queen," it's not an insult, but rather a disinterested assessment.

When I told you to drop the drama queen bit I was referring to specific comments you had made, starting right from the get-go with:

Why is the concession not enough for you? Rather, why are you pretending it never occurred? You're arguing with a phantom of your imagination. and That is perfectly clear, which suggests you're scanning posts for points with which to remonstrate.

Of course I couldn't have possibly misinterpreted your post, which I still don't see as saying what you claim it does. Oh no. I had to have been simply "scanning posts for points with which to remonstrate" and "pretending" something I didn't see as occurring hadn't occurred. Even when I explained how I took your post, why I didn't recognize the "concession" you referred to, you continued with comments such as:

Stop insinuating like a douchebag.

....you intentionally quoted it out of context.

I am pointing out the objective truth that you are a dishonest debater.

...you'll note that I don't disingenuously select out of context bits from your post for dishonest purposes. That's your shtick.

....it satisfies your mean-spirited little attempts at one upsmanship.

Get a life.

So the reference to the drama queen aspect of your posts was based on specific comments you made - not any assessment on my part of what you were thinking or doing. Furthermore, it was in response to your insults and false accusations. I clearly explained how I took your post and why.

But what problematizes your greasy little insinuation here is that we have been arguing primarily about the clause you quoted--that you quoted from my earlier post--and it remains word-for-word exactly the same as in the edited one. Go back and check, if this fact is as lost on you as is its significance. You undermine your self here by the unfortunate fact that you quoted my original. Next time you wish to apply a disingenuous argument, you might wish to think a step or two ahead.

"Greasy little insinuations." No drama there, eh?

I'm "insinuating" nothing. I clearly stated a fact. You called me on not quoting your whole post, of taking it out of context, throwing accusations at me, so I went back to re-read the whole post to see if I did miss something --- only to find that it had been edited. I found that interesting under the circumstances, in light of your comments and accusations, and said so. I repeat. I do find it odd that you would accuse me of misrepresenting your post, of taking it out of context, when it has been edited since I made the post in question. So if you think that justifies your accusing me of making "greasy little insinuations," it says more about you than it does me.

Now seriously. Have a good day. I've seen how you "debate" your point of view and I'm not interested in wasting more time on this topic with you.

[cybercoma]

For further clarification, you should also include a hypothetical province with a heavily separatist electorate who have inflated the vote totals of the NDP by voting for children.

Everyone has the right to vote for whomever they choose, whether you like it or not. I'm not keen on Quebec separatism, but it's their right to have whomever they choose represent them. Moreover, I don't appreciate your epithet about MPs being children. You must be an adult to run for Parliament. If they're old enough to sacrifice their life for this country in Afghanistan, then have enough respect to call them adults.

You should also include a hypothetical group of ideologues who have suddenly concluded that proportional representation is suddenly necessary now that a conservative government is in power.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. There's going to be partisans on both sides of the issue; however, like I said, it wasn't right when Chretien had his successive majorities with a minority of the vote and it's not right now.

Please also include hypothetical election results such as a hypothetical election in 2000 in which a hypothetical PM called "Adscam" won 172 seats with 5.2mil votes while the conservative parties combined for 4.8m votes and 78 seats. Lets not forget another hypothetical election in 1997 in which "Adscam" was again elected with 155 seats and 4.9m votes, compared to 80 seats and 4.95m votes for the conservative parties.

See my previous comment. Why do you only have a problem with it when it's the Left that benefits? Show a little consistency and be equally as appalled when it's the Right too.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. The only hard evidence we have is the most recent election which proves that the system is broken!

That's not true. You just gave evidence of previous elections that point to a broken system.

I don't think American woman will need any explanation as to why our system concentrates power into the hands of the governing party given how difficult it is to get anything done in the American system. Our system attempts to avoid the incessant spending to placate opposition parties that would be the hallmark of a proportional representational system.

I never said I wanted a pure proportional representation system. I fully admit that I don't know what system would be best, but there is a glaringly obvious flaw in the current system. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a problem for parties to work together. You call it incessant spending to placate. That's because you're unreasonable and have absolutely no interest in negotiations or coming to agreements. The point of politics is that the left and right debate, make concessions and come to amicable agreements. This is supposed to be how the best decisions are made. Not for a single side of the spectrum to hold unmitigated power, able to pass any legislation they want with only the Supreme Court standing in their way.

Lets also not forget that a proportional rep system could conceivably give Quebec separatists the power to hold Canada hostage on many divisive policies (hypothetically of course).

Again, I'm not advocating pure PR. However, if enough people believed in separatism and elected that party, then who are you to tell them that their political will is invalid? All of your remarks point to the fact that you're completely intolerant of other parties' viewpoints and political beliefs that are different from your own. That's just too bad for you. You're not the only person living in this country.

[CPCFTW]

Everyone has the right to vote for whomever they choose, whether you like it or not. I'm not keen on Quebec separatism, but it's their right to have whomever they choose represent them. Moreover, I don't appreciate your epithet about MPs being children. You must be an adult to run for Parliament. If they're old enough to sacrifice their life for this country in Afghanistan, then have enough respect to call them adults.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. There's going to be partisans on both sides of the issue; however, like I said, it wasn't right when Chretien had his successive majorities with a minority of the vote and it's not right now.

See my previous comment. Why do you only have a problem with it when it's the Left that benefits? Show a little consistency and be equally as appalled when it's the Right too.

That's not true. You just gave evidence of previous elections that point to a broken system.

I never said I wanted a pure proportional representation system. I fully admit that I don't know what system would be best, but there is a glaringly obvious flaw in the current system. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a problem for parties to work together. You call it incessant spending to placate. That's because you're unreasonable and have absolutely no interest in negotiations or coming to agreements. The point of politics is that the left and right debate, make concessions and come to amicable agreements. This is supposed to be how the best decisions are made. Not for a single side of the spectrum to hold unmitigated power, able to pass any legislation they want with only the Supreme Court standing in their way.

Again, I'm not advocating pure PR. However, if enough people believed in separatism and elected that party, then who are you to tell them that their political will is invalid? All of your remarks point to the fact that you're completely intolerant of other parties' viewpoints and political beliefs that are different from your own. That's just too bad for you. You're not the only person living in this country.

Proportional representation would be like starting a business with a bunch of partners with completely different views. One partner wants it to be a bank, one partner wants it to be a car parts manufacturer, and one partner wants it to be a biotech firm. Each partner negotiates to get some of what he wants, and in the end you wind up with a conglomerate of crappy products/services and a ton of debt. Our current system at least gives each partner a chance to run the business as he/she sees fit, and if they fail, then a new partner can take over and run it the way they think is best.

I have yet to see any genuine ideas that can be demonstrated to be better than our system. We have one of the strongest economies in the developed world and a strong social safety net despite the incidences of the system "being broken" that I had previously mentioned. With this in mind, how exactly is our system broken other than that it didn't generate the winner many people wanted?

I won't bother responding to the rest of your bleeding heart insinuations other than if I was intolerant of other people's views, I would be the one objecting to the results of a democratic election. Seems to me the intolerant ones are those who want to change the system and depose of a leader that was elected by 40% of voters simply because the system didn't provide them with the results they wanted.

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Guest American Woman]

Each seat will typically have anywhere from 3 to 7 candidates competing for it during the election. The major parties (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat) will usually run someone in just about every riding, while the rest of the candidates are usually filled out by the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and a combination of minor parties and independents (Green Party, Christian Heritage Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, etc).

A candidate wins the riding when (s)he gets more votes than any other candidate, rather than getting a majority of votes. Someone can win a riding without actually getting 50% or more of the votes in that riding. Let me give an example that could happen in theory, but generally doesn't.

Electoral District Sometown West has 1000 voting constituents. The Liberals are running candidate "LPC", the Conservatives candidate "CPC" and the New Democrats candidate "NDP". On election night the votes are tallied and candidate "NDP" gets 333 votes, candidate "LPC" gets 333 votes and candidate "CPC" gets 334 votes. With 1/3 the vote +1, candidate "CPC" wins the riding. Theoretically, again this never happens in reality, if there were only 3 candidates in every riding by three parties, one of them could actually win 100% of the seats in the House with 1/3 +308 votes.

To answer your question in short. Yes. It's the way the votes are concentrated. The argument many of the die-hard CPC supporters here make is that the Liberals and New Democrats are not the same party. Of course, they're right. That goes without saying. The problem, however, is that those two parties are much closer, regardless of what anyone else says, on the political spectrum than they are to the CPC. The LPC and NDP are both left-wing parties, with the LPC being closer to the a centre. Nevertheless, they take similar positions on the things that Brigette DePape brought up in her press-release: corporate taxes, military expansion and the environment. Those positions are the antithesis of the Conservative position.

So, when Ms. DePape calls upon the electorate to hold the government to task for their decisions, I have to agree with her. The combined number of votes for the NDP and LPC is 2 million votes greater than the number of votes that the CPC received. In other words, there are 2 million more supporters of the types of positions the NDP and LPC have on those particular issues. Again, it's completely irrelevant that the people who vote for those parties may not support them on every issue. If we consider that then we can dismiss every policy of a party on the same grounds. Likewise, we could say supporters of the CPC may support the oppositions policies to strengthen that position. The best gauge we have is to consider how people voted and assume that they voted that way because they support the way that particular party's candidate will vote. Back to the point. The policies of the NDP and LPC are similar in those areas and 2 million MORE people voted for the NDP and LPC.

Now, I'm not saying either the NDP or LPC should be the governing party. That's not the case at all because the CPC did get more votes than either of those parties. However, the number of votes beyond the NDP is not all that much. What I've been trying to argue is that the system is broken because it does not give a fair representation of the political will of Canadians. Harper has a governing mandate, to be sure, but by no means should it be a majority mandate. A majority in parliament means that his party passes every piece of legislation they put forward because the combined votes of the other MPs cannot possibly take it down. Yet, if you look at the combined votes of the electorate that voted against the CPC in the election, they exceed the number of people that voted for a Conservative mandate. So, to be fair, I believe that the combined votes of the members of parliament ought to reflect that.

Does that help any?

Thank you for your explanation - I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and yes, it does help.

I do realize that you have a different system than we do here in the States and so I try to understand how you are represented in Canada. Obviously we vote directly for some positions that you do not, and as I understand it, your Senators serve for life. Or do I have that wrong? But if they do, they would not represent the results of every election, right? Or are they in a different category than your MPs? - do they represent the voters in a different capacity?

I do take an interest in how a multi-party nation works in comparison to our two party system. As you pointed out, there are others apart from the main four in Canada just as there are others apart from the main two in the U.S., but basically it is the main parties that we are referring to.

I understand your point - when the vote is split by parties having more similar views and the one with the most different views therefore ends up with the major representation by virtue of the concentration of the votes, it could be seen as misrepresentation. But, as you said, the parties that you say are more similar in beliefs are not the same party, so if either of those parties had received the most votes the same principle would apply. Would Brigette have been objecting 'to the system'/the PM then?

Furthermore, she cannot rightfully say that when Harper does this specific thing or that specific thing he isn't representing everyone who didn't vote for him; she cannot speak for all of the people who did not vote for Harper. At times I agree with a specific action of a candidate I didn't vote for just as I I sometimes disagree with a specific action of a candidate I did vote for.

So again, she was out of line in her claim to be speaking for the people of Canada - and if she doesn't like how they system works, how it put him/his party in the majority, seems to me it should have been the system that she was protesting against, not Harper.

[DogOnPorch]

Harper is often portrayed as a monster. But, let's face it...he owns a cat.