First Nations ban pipelines to west coast

[cybercoma]

60% against?

How did you get that figure? I don't recall any referenda about any pipeline?

How do you know that 60% of the people are against the Tory approach to handling the pipeline issue?

You said there were more people like you than her. In fact, the majority of people did not vote for the Tories. Something like 25% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for them. Your implication that more people vote for Tories than anyone else is obviously wrong.

[Shwa]

so what? There are negotiations on land claim settlements going on today, in some cases for 2 or 3 decades. Your little quote is written in 2009 and refers to a 'suggestion' that extinguishment 'might' not be required. It means nothing, or really less than nothing since many of those claims still are not settled.

Extinguishment is not just a referral to land right, to ultimate control of land and resources. It also refers to an end of negotiation: here is the deal, it will not be reopened, there will be no more salries paid or operating costs covered in perpetuity . That has caused deals to flounder too, and it is easy to see why. Not everybody really wants what comes with self government. It is much, much more than just land and money.

Except it is government sponsored agencies telling the government to drop the policy. That is a key point that you have glossed over there. I can see what you are trying to do...

[Wild Bill]

You said there were more people like you than her. In fact, the majority of people did not vote for the Tories. Something like 25% of eligible voters actually cast a ballot for them. Your implication that more people vote for Tories than anyone else is obviously wrong.

Well, if the Tories did not get more votes than the Liberals, more than the NDP and we are not in a minority government, how did they possibly win a majority?

Or are you adding up all the Liberal and NDP voters, along with all those that did not vote for anyone and deciding that they ALL would be against Tory approach on this particular issue?

I bow to your spectacular display of psychic powers!

[cybercoma]

You said that the government creating conflict gets you to keep voting for them, then asked if there were more people voting like you or like jacee. People that vote for the other parties likely don't support that approach, which was 61% of people that cast ballots during the election. So yeah, there's more people like jacee, regardless of the majority government. FPTP allows for majorities to be had with much less than a majority of the votes. You claim that people from the other parties might support this kind of conflict rather than co-operation. While that might be possible, although doubtful, it's jsut as likely if not more likely that there are conservatives that disagree with this kind of conflict. So again, your question of whether there's more like you or more like jacee, there's a really good chance that there's more like jacee.

[jacee]

60% against?

How did you get that figure? I don't recall any referenda about any pipeline?

How do you know that 60% of the people are against the Tory approach to handling the pipeline issue?

Ya ... what cybercoma said.

(Trimming the lawn ...)

Wild Bill said ...

If last election was any indicator, I would say you're in the minority.

But you're wrong: I'm in the majority who did NOT vote for Harper: He got 40% of the vote. I'm in the other 60% of voters.

And ... we had the lowest voter turnout ever ... fifty something percent.

So cybercoma's roughly right ... Harper got the votes of 40% of fifty-something percent of Canadians. The rest either didn't vote or voted for someone else.

Harper's majority of seats in the House of Commons is a finely chiselled masterpiece of political opportunism fuelled by deep pockets.

Even if the nonvoters line up the same, there are more voices opposing them than with them.

Now our 60 potentially 75% of the voices ... well ... that's getting pretty close to 99%. Harper and the 1% are miniscule, by the numbers of people. .

Edited December 8, 2011 by jacee

[blueblood]

Ya ... what cybercoma said.

You said ...

But you're wrong: I'm in the majority who did NOT vote for Harper: He got 40% of the vote. I'm in the other 60% of voters.

And ... we had the lowest voter turnout ever ... fifty something percent.

So cybercoma's roughly right ... Harper got the votes of 40% of fifty-something percent of Canadians. The rest either didn't vote or voted for someone else.

How about those ndp candidates or liberal candidates who won their seats, did they win their seat with over 50% of the vote? Did the majority of their constituents vote for them?

[cybercoma]

How about those ndp candidates or liberal candidates who won their seats, did they win their seat with over 50% of the vote? Did the majority of their constituents vote for them?

Completely beside the point. A majority of people did not vote for the Conservatives.

[Wild Bill]

Ya ... what cybercoma said.

(Trimming the lawn ...)

Wild Bill said ...

But you're wrong: I'm in the majority who did NOT vote for Harper: He got 40% of the vote. I'm in the other 60% of voters.

And ... we had the lowest voter turnout ever ... fifty something percent.

So cybercoma's roughly right ... Harper got the votes of 40% of fifty-something percent of Canadians. The rest either didn't vote or voted for someone else.

Wow! Both you and CC claim that your wishes and dreams are certainties!

If any other poster tried that with either of you he wouldn't hear the end of it for days!

I can't decide if you are trying to weasel out of being wrong or if you actually think that way. If either of you ran polling companies you'd starve!

[blueblood]

Completely beside the point. A majority of people did not vote for the Conservatives.

That's not beside the point, it is the point. It's like the quebec sovereignty debate - if quebec can separate from canada, can parts of quebec split off. Same here. If the tories got 40% and a majority, what about the individual mps? I bet almost all of them didn't get above 50% of the vote. Do you suggest that MPs have a little committee in the constituency office made up of all the candidates to decide on how the MP should vote?

[cybercoma]

That's not beside the point, it is the point. It's like the quebec sovereignty debate - if quebec can separate from canada, can parts of quebec split off. Same here. If the tories got 40% and a majority, what about the individual mps? I bet almost all of them didn't get above 50% of the vote. Do you suggest that MPs have a little committee in the constituency office made up of all the candidates to decide on how the MP should vote?

blah blah blah. The majority of people still didn't vote for the Tories.

[jacee]

What he said ...

I believe what we're talking about how many people might oppose Harper's "handling" of the pipeline issue.

[Shwa]

What he said ...

I believe what we're talking about how many people might oppose Harper's "handling" of the pipeline issue.

Or any other issue. A conciliatory and consensus-seeking government is a good one. There doesn't seem to be that sort of ethic with the CPC to any great degree, if any, and they come off believing that their small majority is synonymous with unanimous consent. And of course, this simply is not true.

[Bonam]

The majority of people still didn't vote for the Tories.

Neither did the majority vote for the NDP, or the Liberals, or the Bloc. Of voters that bothered to vote, more people agree with the Conservatives than any other party.

This tired old line of argument is just silly. Where were all your complaints through all the years of Liberal governments when they also won less than 50% of the vote? How often has a Canadian government actually won more than 50% of the vote? Like maybe a couple times in the last 100 years if that?

This is the way our democracy works. And it works pretty damn well, Canada has good governance compared to most other nations, including most other Western nations.

[dre]

Neither did the majority vote for the NDP, or the Liberals, or the Bloc. Of voters that bothered to vote, more people agree with the Conservatives than any other party.

This tired old line of argument is just silly. Where were all your complaints through all the years of Liberal governments when they also won less than 50% of the vote? How often has a Canadian government actually won more than 50% of the vote? Like maybe a couple times in the last 100 years if that?

This is the way our democracy works. And it works pretty damn well, Canada has good governance compared to most other nations, including most other Western nations.

The fact of the matter is the CPC has a majority under the existing rules, and theres not much point in whining about it. But it does point out a possible problem with the rules themselves. I dont think ANY party should get unchecked power with the support of only a minority of Canadians.

But thats how are system works... and the rules are the same for any party.

[Bonam]

The fact of the matter is the CPC has a majority under the existing rules, and theres not much point in whining about it. But it does point out a possible problem with the rules themselves. I dont think ANY party should get unchecked power with the support of only a minority of Canadians.

But thats how are system works... and the rules are the same for any party.

If the system required a majority of the vote to get a majority government, then we'd almost never have a majority government. That, or the parties would coalesce into a 2 party system akin to the US. Either situation would reduce the real options available to voters.

Our present system allows for both minority and majority governments with differrent realistic levels of support for the leading party, and it allows a multi party landscape which is more much dynamic than many other democracies, without descending into the mess of constant coalitions where tiny parties represeting fringe elements can get vast amounts of power.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

If the system required a majority of the vote to get a majority government, then we'd almost never have a majority government. That, or the parties would coalesce into a 2 party system akin to the US. Either situation would reduce the real options available to voters.

Our present system allows for both minority and majority governments with differrent realistic levels of support for the leading party, and it allows a multi party landscape which is more much dynamic than many other democracies.

Yes but it also allows for almost unchecked power. Id be fine with raising the bar a little. I like minority governments, because they tend to be more moderate, and do less (a good thing IMO).

[Bonam]

Yes but it also allows for almost unchecked power. Id be fine with raising the bar a little. I like minority governments, because they tend to be more moderate, and do less (a good thing IMO).

I agree. But at the same time, I think parties should be able to obtain majorities more than once in a blue moon. Sometimes politically difficult things must be done (I.e. budget cuts) and that is near impossible with a minority.

Anyway, the power is far from unchecked. Parliament's power is restrained by the constitution, the courts, and the crown.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Bonam

[blueblood]

I agree. But at the same time, I think parties should be able to obtain majorities more than once in a blue moon. Sometimes politically difficult things must be done (I.e. budget cuts) and that is near impossible with a minority.

Anyway, the power is far from unchecked. Parliament's power is restrained by the constitution, the courts, and the crown.

And most importantly by the election every 4-5 years.

[cybercoma]

Neither did the majority vote for the NDP, or the Liberals, or the Bloc. Of voters that bothered to vote, more people agree with the Conservatives than any other party.

This tired old line of argument is just silly. Where were all your complaints through all the years of Liberal governments when they also won less than 50% of the vote? How often has a Canadian government actually won more than 50% of the vote? Like maybe a couple times in the last 100 years if that?

This is the way our democracy works. And it works pretty damn well, Canada has good governance compared to most other nations, including most other Western nations.

That still doesn't mean a majority of people agree with the CPC's positions.

[Wild Bill]

That still doesn't mean a majority of people agree with the CPC's positions.

No it doesn't. The simple truth is that without holding a referendum or at least a damn good poll on an issue there's no way your ridiculous math can claim to prove ANY percentage of people agreeing or disagreeing with the government!

The ONLY thing that is certain is that the popular vote won by each party is a published fact! Any claim about how people feel between elections is mere supposition.

Could we add up all the Tory and Liberal voters, add in all those who didn't vote and claim that total as people who don't like the NDP? That math would be just as ridiculous!

Our system works by ridings. It is the same for all parties. What's more, those who don't vote are irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

....and that still doesn't mean the majority of people agree with the CPC. If you want to talk about numbers between elections, the last Nanos Poll had the CPC at 36% support.

That still doesn't show the majority of people agreeing with the CPC.