Harper, low on trust

[Fletch 27]

My "little friends"? Wtf is that personal attack for?

FPTP ... And that's why it needs to be changed.

The system has become entangled in itself and corrupted to the point it is no longer viable democracy.

We have an oligarchy of LibCon power brokers representing big money, not Canadians, and a lot of the big money sucked out of Canada is stashed overseas UNTAXED.

Look Jacee.... Dont hate the game... hate the "playa"..... This is how things have worked since the dawn of parliament.... Just cuz your horse dont win (or cant) doesnt mean you change the rules FOR that lame horse....

[jacee]

... we end up with the brainless politics we get.

On that we agree, little friend.

[PIK]

Oh my.

Explain that remark, because it shows me that you suffer big time from political correctness.

[carepov]

The problem with Canadian politics isn't the system, but the apathy and ignorance of the electorate. When ~40% of the eligible population doesn't even vote, and most of those that do know nothing about the issues or candidates, we end up with the brainless politics we get. The dumber the electorate, the dumber our parliament. If the average person spent an hour a week reading the news, becoming informed of the issues and actually thinking them through critically, things would improve. Unfortunately, people can't spare that time with a busy schedule of Glee and The Bachelor booked up.

Do I like Harper? Hell no. Do I think he plays to the lowest common denominator? Yep! Did I vote for him? Sure did. The alernatives sucked more.

Good post. I respect Harper because he is the best leader in terms of winning elections. I disrespect the electorate for accepting leaders like Harper. Although I do not agree that "the alternatives sucked more" I could argue either side of that question.

[Mighty AC]

The problem with Canadian politics isn't the system, but the apathy and ignorance of the electorate. When ~40% of the eligible population doesn't even vote, and most of those that do know nothing about the issues or candidates, we end up with the brainless politics we get.

Do you feel the 40% are more educated on the issues? Why would you want them to show up and water down the power of your vote? In my opinion, the FPTP electoral system is flawed. Any winner take all style riding system distorts the will of the voters.

[Moonbox]

The 40% who don't vote are clearly less educated about the issues. I only brought it up to highlight how dumb the electorate is. Personally, I think it's dumb not to vote. It's also dumb not to know what you're voting about. Both are bad.

As for FPTP, of course it's a flawed system. Democracy is flawed and always will be. It's less flawed than the alternatives. People who say it distorts the will of voters usually just don't understand what the system was designed to do. Either that or they're just unhappy that they're supporting a party that doesn't succeed undert he current model, which is just whining as far as I'm concerned.

You're not voting for the composition of parliament. You are voting over who your community will send as a representative to parliament. The system was designed this way to ensure that the different priorities of regions and minority groups have a voice in parliament. Your representative is there purely to ensure that the interests of your community are looked after. It's little different than voting for your mayor and city council. Either your candidate wins, or he/she loses. Get informed about the issues and make sure you don't waste your vote by not making the best and most pragmatic choice for you.

Where parliament begins to fail is in the idealogy, party allegiances and (again) the ignorance and apathy of the electorate. 99% of people have no idea what their MP supports or stands for because votes are virtually always whipped. Under ideal circumstances, if a vote was put forth on an issue in conflict with a community/region's well-being, its MP would vote against it. The consequences of this, however, is often that the MP is expelled from the party. The voters in that community, rather than informing themselves over what he/she was expelled for (looking after them) instead recognizes that their pet party expelled that MP and then looks unfavourably at that person during an election.

That's the electorate's fault.

[wyly]

You're not voting for the composition of parliament. You are voting over who your community will send as a representative to parliament. The system was designed this way to ensure that the different priorities of regions and minority groups have a voice in parliament. Your representative is there purely to ensure that the interests of your community are looked after.

whoops I guess it's not working in Alberta where 40% of the population hasn't had someone represent their opinions(voice) in many decades....fptp is a severely flawed system that is favoured by the established parties to exclude others from power and preserve the status quo...

[Mighty AC]

The 40% who don't vote are clearly less educated about the issues. I only brought it up to highlight how dumb the electorate is. Personally, I think it's dumb not to vote. It's also dumb not to know what you're voting about. Both are bad.

The fewer uninformed voters, that turn out, the better. They simply dilute the power of your ballot.

As for FPTP, of course it's a flawed system. Democracy is flawed and always will be. It's less flawed than the alternatives. People who say it distorts the will of voters usually just don't understand what the system was designed to do.

...

You're not voting for the composition of parliament. You are voting over who your community will send as a representative to parliament. The system was designed this way to ensure that the different priorities of regions and minority groups have a voice in parliament.

Oh, I understand the system and it actually ensures that minority groups do not have a voice in parliament. It actually ensures that near half of the electorate have no voice in parliament at all.

It is not uncommon for an MP to win a riding with less than 50% of vote. That means the majority of the votes cast in a riding helped create zero representation in Ottawa.

If 15% of the country supports a particular party platform they will still not create any representation unless they happen to concentrate in one area. That's a problem in my opinion.

[wyly]

The fewer uninformed voters, that turn out, the better. They simply dilute the power of your ballot.

Oh, I understand the system and it actually ensures that minority groups do not have a voice in parliament. It actually ensures that near half of the electorate have no voice in parliament at all.

It is not uncommon for an MP to win a riding with less than 50% of vote. That means the majority of the votes cast in a riding helped create zero representation in Ottawa.

If 15% of the country supports a particular party platform they will still not create any representation unless they happen to concentrate in one area. That's a problem in my opinion.

now imagine yourself living in province where you've had no voice in decades...40% of a province(alberta) has no effective representation ... a FPTP that has only one non conservative seat for 1.5 million people, 27 conservative and one ndp and with 6 new seats to be added later the imbalance becomes even worse....the old reform slogan "the west wants in" didn't reflect the situation it should something like "I want my vote to count" or "I want a voice too" or "I want a full democracy"...

[Moonbox]

The fewer uninformed voters, that turn out, the better. They simply dilute the power of your ballot.

Okay, whatever. I'm not really arguing against that. The fact is that the electorate, as a whole, is uninterested. The average voter or none-voter doesn't have a clue.

Oh, I understand the system and it actually ensures that minority groups do not have a voice in parliament. It actually ensures that near half of the electorate have no voice in parliament at all.

It is not uncommon for an MP to win a riding with less than 50% of vote. That means the majority of the votes cast in a riding helped create zero representation in Ottawa.

Clearly you don't understand the system with comments like this. You're not voting to ensure you're represented in parliament. You're voting to determine who's going to best represent your community.

If 15% of the country supports a particular party platform they will still not create any representation unless they happen to concentrate in one area. That's a problem in my opinion.

That's because you don't understand federalism.

[Keepitsimple]

now imagine yourself living in province where you've had no voice in decades...40% of a province(alberta) has no effective representation ... a FPTP that has only one non conservative seat for 1.5 million people, 27 conservative and one ndp and with 6 new seats to be added later the imbalance becomes even worse....the old reform slogan "the west wants in" didn't reflect the situation it should something like "I want my vote to count" or "I want a voice too" or "I want a full democracy"...

Specifically, what is your complaint as it relates to your riding? Does your Conservative MP allow you to voice your opinion through a phonecall, a visit, an email. Do you have a view or set of views that a good portion of your consituents share? Have you motivated these people to present a coherent viewpoint that your MP can address? Most MP's are not partisan at the Grass Roots - they genuinely try to service all constituents and in doing so, communicate a message and provide service that can sway their voting intention. That's what an MP is supposed to do - be they Liberal, NDP, Conservative or other. The trouble today is that most people just like to complain - and don't actively get involved to focus on one or two important issues that can affect their riding. Your MP received the most votes of any candidate - and especially in Alberta, that would be unlikely to change with a run-off. The important part of our system is to have an effective MP - who provides servce (access to the Federal bureaucracy) and communication.

[eyeball]

Okay, whatever. I'm not really arguing against that. The fact is that the electorate, as a whole, is uninterested. The average voter or none-voter doesn't have a clue.

Do you have proof it's a fact? Did the poll we've been discussing ask people if they were stupid or apathetic and if this keeps them from voting? Is there another study you have in your possession that proves your assertion?

I know lots of interested people who do have a clue and they seem way more disgusted at the lying and dishonesty of politicians than ignorant about federalism or parliament. The political trust poll above indicates that most people would leave these institutions alone and that it's how politicians use and abuse them that's driving the electorate's views.

[Mighty AC]

Clearly you don't understand the system with comments like this. You're not voting to ensure you're represented in parliament. You're voting to determine who's going to best represent your community. [/Quote] That local representative runs on the same platform as the rest of the party. MPs then vote along with their party's ideals, thus they represent only a fraction of the citizens living in their riding.

Winner take all style systems are fine for determining a local rep, but forming a national or provincial parliament out of local winners is what distorts the will of the people. FPTP over represents concentrated pockets of support for a party and under represents evenly distributed support. For example, in 2008 the Parti Quebecois received ~9% of the popular vote; but, their concentration in one area granted them 49 seats. The NDP garnered ~18% of the popular vote; but, since their support is more evenly distributed they won just 37 seats.

I think that is a problem, but that is because I believe that in a representative democracy the electoral system should produce a parliament that matches the will of the people as closely as possible. I have a friend that believes that the electoral system should heavily favour the mainstream parties and punish those who stand out from the crowd. Like Liberals in Calgary, Conservatives in Montreal or Greens everywhere. Since, he sincerely believes that not all votes cast should be represented equally he loves FPTP. Thus, I suppose support for various electoral systems hinges on the belief in the purpose of them.

Anyway, I think we have hijacked this thread long enough. This discussion can be continued here: Objective of an electoral system

[Moonbox]

Do you have proof it's a fact? Did the poll we've been discussing ask people if they were stupid or apathetic and if this keeps them from voting? Is there another study you have in your possession that proves your assertion?

I know lots of interested people who do have a clue and they seem way more disgusted at the lying and dishonesty of politicians than ignorant about federalism or parliament. The political trust poll above indicates that most people would leave these institutions alone and that it's how politicians use and abuse them that's driving the electorate's views.

eyeball, don't ask for proof for stupid crap like this. It makes you look dumb. 40% of people don't even vote. That's proof that the electorate isn't interested. The fact that clinically retarded campaign ads like Harper's from 2011 actually WORKED is proof that people aren't doing a lot of thinking.

If people were actually INTERESTED in politics, and were so outraged etc, they'd actually hold the politicians to a higher standard. They don't. They watch TV, see the election ads, and make their decisions based on that.

Good for you for knowing people that are interested in politics. I know lots too. I know far more, however, that aren't in the least interested.

[Moonbox]

FPTP over represents concentrated pockets of support for a party and under represents evenly distributed support.

You don't have to explain it to me. I know that. It's working as intended. You don't understand the goal of the system. Read more into 'federalism'.

[jacee]

Good post. I respect Harper because he is the best leader in terms of winning elections.

Dictators are good at 'winning' elections too, but they do things like suppressing the opposition vote by, for example, directing them to the wrong polling stations ... oh wait ... !!

[Moonbox]

Good one...

[Mighty AC]

You don't have to explain it to me. I know that. It's working as intended. You don't understand the goal of the system. Read more into 'federalism'.

Federalism describes the division of power between federal and provincial parliaments. How does that relate to an electoral system favouring concentrated support versus distributed support?

[jacee]

Good one...

Thanks.

[PIK]

Dictators are good at 'winning' elections too, but they do things like suppressing the opposition vote by, for example, directing them to the wrong polling stations ... oh wait ... !!

Do you have a link to where the courts have said cons were guilty of that? All I have heard is that a lib was guily of that.

[Merlin]

I think that PM Harper is a nice man who has a nice looking family, he also likes kittens.

It's fair to say that millions of Canadians trust him to do a better job then the other guys available.

I was scared at first when he was PM when then PM Martin said that Harper would put guns in our streets and that he had a hidden agenda that included making abortion illegal and making homosexuals go back in the closet. But none of that has happened. They said it would happen when he had a majority and again, none of that has happened. I trust him more and more all the time to do the right job.

[Moonbox]

Federalism describes the division of power between federal and provincial parliaments. How does that relate to an electoral system favouring concentrated support versus distributed support?

The point of federalism is to ensure that regions remain affiliated but mostly self-determining. This is why we have provinces and territories and this is why we have ridings. Without ridings, regional interests are nowhere near as relevant. The riding system ensures that member districts of the federation have a noticeable voice. Representation by population transfers that power away from electoral districts and instead it centralizes it instead, which is contrary to how federation is supposed to work. If you really need examples of how this would work I can give it to you, but hopefully not. I don't want to write another three paragraphs.

[Argus]

What almost all people who were polled, whether they like him or not, seem to agree that what Harper has done is rule from the shadows where virtually everything he does and says is a big secret.

It must cheer you to see how seemingly blase most Canadians are about this.

Why must it cheer me? He's continuing a process which began with Trudeau, who famously derided MPs as nobodies, 100 feet off Parliament Hill. No, I"m not happy about it, but I'm not a huge fan of Harper anyway. He only shines in comparison to the idiots in the NDP and Liberals.

[Mighty AC]

The point of federalism is to ensure that regions remain affiliated but mostly self-determining. This is why we have provinces and territories and this is why we have ridings. Without ridings, regional interests are nowhere near as relevant.

Federalism refers to the division of power among governing bodies, ridings have no power. The do theoretically help to ensure that geographical areas are represented in parliament; but, there are proportional systems that include regional representation. This is being discussed here: http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=21879

[eyeball]

eyeball, don't ask for proof for stupid crap like this. It makes you look dumb. 40% of people don't even vote. That's proof that the electorate isn't interested. The fact that clinically retarded campaign ads like Harper's from 2011 actually WORKED is proof that people aren't doing a lot of thinking.

How or where did the fact that the 40% of eligible voters who don't vote become the proof that they're stupid, apathetic and more interested in watching TV? Are you just making this up, did you read it somewhere, has anyone actually asked these people why they don't vote?

As for the effectiveness of Harper's appeal to the retarded, the 60% of votes cast for other parties clearly indicate the ads actually only worked on those who voted for Harper - you know the a humongous majority of Canadians.

As for many of the 40% who don't vote the ads probably only enhanced their disgust, dismay, disillusionment...a whole range of feelings I suspect. No doubt a few were even bored to stupefaction.