Harper runs the country like a king

[Canadian Blue]

Just look at Arlen Spector [R], and Sen. Nelson [D]. One is a full fledged Republican Liberal, the other a Conservative Democrat. Congressman and Senators do have more power when it comes to disagreeing with certain policies, McCain felt pretty free to attack Bush's stand on torture without worrying about party discipline.

[normanchateau]

He has done a few reforms in the senate, and promised a fixed election date. I'd like for our MP's to be able to vote based on what their constituents want, but so far no party has voiced support for that. The NDP, Bloc, and Liberal's have all forced their MP's to vote based on the party line.

If you think things are gonna change if a new government comes in then you're going to be dissapointed.

He did some reforms in the senate by appointing an unelected friend a senator and a minister responible for over $10 BILLION of our tax dollars. That was just 2 weeks after he got elected on a promise of an elected senate.

You're so cynical Saturn. It's not as though this was just any old unelected friend. Fortier was also his unpaid campaign manager for the leadership of the Conservative Party. It was payback time. And when Quebecers get payback, it's big time. Plus, as Harper pointed out at the time, he "needed" a Montreal MP. Good thing Fortier didn't live in Chibougamou, Quebec. Even Harper supporters wouldn't have bought the bs that he needed a Chibougamou MP.

And Harper's claim when he bribed Emerson with a cabinet position that he "needed" a Vancouver MP will yield him as many votes in BC as Fortier will win for him in Quebec.

[Remiel]

McCain and his cohorts practically capitulated in the end. They are not a good example of the " sucess " of that system.

The point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter if you are free to vote if the executive assumes the power to overrule anything you say, as Bush has done. Harper would have had to use the nonwithstanding clause to overturn same-sex marriage to be equivalently undemocratic as that guy has been.

[normanchateau]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

[Saturn]

Thats true, look at the midterm election's. When a president pissed American's off they rewarded him by stalling his agenda and bringing in democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. America has a system of checks and balances, were as we have the PMO. What we need to do is bring in a system similar to perhaps Sweden or Germany. That way in order to govern you must be willing to compromise in order to bring about a coalition.

What we need is to bring in proportional representation, elect both houses on fixed dates with one of them in the middle of the other's term. That way they can keep each other in check and we can change (or correct) policy every 2 years. But don't expect this to happen. The PM has the power to rule like a king and he is not about to give that away.

[Saturn]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Harper didn't because he was in opposition. If Chretien was on board, we would be in Iraq and believing that it was the right thing to do.

[normanchateau]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it.

Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

[Saturn]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it.

Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no?

[normanchateau]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it.

Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no?

Yes but the mission differed then or at least that's the perception.

[Saturn]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it.

Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no?

Yes but the mission differed then or at least that's the perception.

Yep, perception is all that matters

[normanchateau]

We want to believe that we are better than the Americans but if our politicians had chosen to push the Bush agenda, half of us would still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the rest.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it.

Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no?

Yes but the mission differed then or at least that's the perception.

Yep, perception is all that matters

Precisely!

And in the next election, how Dion is ultimately perceived will be the main determinant of the outcome.

Canada's perception of Duceppe, Layton and Harper isn't likely to change one iota...whatever an iota is.

[hiti]

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Harper didn't because he was in opposition. If Chretien was on board, we would be in Iraq and believing that it was the right thing to do.

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there?

Harper did plenty of brainwashing while in opposition. His buddy Zac, the RCMP commish helped with the announcement of an inquiry into Ralph Goodale during the last stages of the federal election, even thought there was no evidence to go on. And when the s**t hit the fan, Steve tried to cover Zac's butt but the can of worms popped it's lid.

We'd be really smart to stay away from American style politics. After Katerina hit New Orleans, the diaster bill that passed in the US had attached to it numerous goodies like a bridge in someone's riding, a road here. a road there in order to get the votes to pass the bill. Most pathetic way to do politics.

And why on earth would we regulate ourselves to go to the polls every two years? Really, for what? As for the senate, if the provinces wants to elect senators-in-waiting then appoint them but many provinces do not want this. I sure don't want the likes of Morton in the Senate.

The election for premier of Alberta was a big farce. Anyone and their dog could plunk down $5 on the day of voting and vote. This meant that the best person for the job didn't get in. Oh well.... Tories in Alberta are on their way out. The way the Liberals elected their leader was the way to go. Each member voted for their choice based upon information that was available when they voted, most of that info gleaned from the media, but when the delegates got to the convention, they got to meet the candidates and to vote for the best person for the job.

There isn't a better system in the world than what Canada has. Except that losers always want to change the odds. I suggest they campaign smarter.

[Charles Anthony]

We'd be really smart to stay away from American style politics. After Katerina hit New Orleans, the diaster bill that passed in the US had attached to it numerous goodies like a bridge in someone's riding, a road here. a road there in order to get the votes to pass the bill. Most pathetic way to do politics.

That sounds like Canadian style politics. Maybe the Americans are learning from us.

Saturn and NormChapeau, would you guys stop super-quoting so much! It hurts the eyes!!

[Saturn]

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Harper didn't because he was in opposition. If Chretien was on board, we would be in Iraq and believing that it was the right thing to do.

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there?

Harper did plenty of brainwashing while in opposition. His buddy Zac, the RCMP commish helped with the announcement of an inquiry into Ralph Goodale during the last stages of the federal election, even thought there was no evidence to go on. And when the s**t hit the fan, Steve tried to cover Zac's butt but the can of worms popped it's lid.

We'd be really smart to stay away from American style politics. After Katerina hit New Orleans, the diaster bill that passed in the US had attached to it numerous goodies like a bridge in someone's riding, a road here. a road there in order to get the votes to pass the bill. Most pathetic way to do politics.

And why on earth would we regulate ourselves to go to the polls every two years? Really, for what? As for the senate, if the provinces wants to elect senators-in-waiting then appoint them but many provinces do not want this. I sure don't want the likes of Morton in the Senate.

The election for premier of Alberta was a big farce. Anyone and their dog could plunk down $5 on the day of voting and vote. This meant that the best person for the job didn't get in. Oh well.... Tories in Alberta are on their way out. The way the Liberals elected their leader was the way to go. Each member voted for their choice based upon information that was available when they voted, most of that info gleaned from the media, but when the delegates got to the convention, they got to meet the candidates and to vote for the best person for the job.

There isn't a better system in the world than what Canada has. Except that losers always want to change the odds. I suggest they campaign smarter.

Ya, our system is a great way to discriminate against Canadian voters who don't vote for the big 2 parties. It takes 30,000 votes to elect a Liberal and not even 20 times as many are enough to elect a Green MP. You can't argue that one Liberal voter should be worth more than 20 Green voters. That's BS and that's what makes our "democratic" system a farce.

[Wilber]

There isn't a better system in the world than what Canada has. Except that losers always want to change the odds. I suggest they campaign smarter.

Actually the UK itself has a better system. Party discipline is not enforced nearly as strictly as in Canada, the MP's don't stand for it. It is not the system so much as what we have done with it.

[Saturn]

There isn't a better system in the world than what Canada has. Except that losers always want to change the odds. I suggest they campaign smarter.

Actually the UK itself has a better system. Party discipline is not enforced nearly as strictly as in Canada, the MP's don't stand for it. It is not the system so much as what we have done with it.

The system provides ample opportunities to be misused and abused. The UK politicians just don't abuse it as much as our own. Since our politicians have shown that they cannot be trusted with the current system, the system has to change to provide them with less opportunities to abuse it. In other words, if you can't trust a dog with a steak, then you have to tie him up so that he can't get the stake.

[uOttawaMan]

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Harper didn't because he was in opposition. If Chretien was on board, we would be in Iraq and believing that it was the right thing to do.

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there?

STRAW MAN ARGUEMENT DETECTED!

What are you saying? That the one squadron of the outdated Leopard tanks out of a total of 66 in the CF will be left to rot in the sandbox? Or that all the tanks that go to Afghanistan get destroyed? Or that we should be attempting to use the old Russian T-34 and T-54's lying around there?

[White Doors]

We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Harper didn't because he was in opposition. If Chretien was on board, we would be in Iraq and believing that it was the right thing to do.

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there?

STRAW MAN ARGUEMENT DETECTED!

What are you saying? That the one squadron of the outdated Leopard tanks out of a total of 66 in the CF will be left to rot in the sandbox? Or that all the tanks that go to Afghanistan get destroyed? Or that we should be attempting to use the old Russian T-34 and T-54's lying around there?

haha

[Canadian Blue]

Harper did plenty of brainwashing while in opposition. His buddy Zac, the RCMP commish helped with the announcement of an inquiry into Ralph Goodale during the last stages of the federal election, even thought there was no evidence to go on. And when the s**t hit the fan, Steve tried to cover Zac's butt but the can of worms popped it's lid.

Another conspiracy, me like...

And why on earth would we regulate ourselves to go to the polls every two years? Really, for what? As for the senate, if the provinces wants to elect senators-in-waiting then appoint them but many provinces do not want this. I sure don't want the likes of Morton in the Senate.

But Ted Morton was a senator elect. So appoint them, as long as they agree with everything the PMO says?

No way would Chretien have sent troops to Iraq, ever. He only sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the reconstruction and since Steve has been voted in our troops are at war. Steve just spent $217 million to send our tanks to Afghanistan. Do you know how many rusting Russian tanks dot the countryside over there?

Yeah, f%$king Harper, man when he was in power in 2005 he sure led our troops to the slaughter by sending us to the more volatile south. Even though everybody in the military was saying we would be seeing more Canadian's die, for some reason most Canadian's didn't understand until it started happening.

The election for premier of Alberta was a big farce. Anyone and their dog could plunk down $5 on the day of voting and vote. This meant that the best person for the job didn't get in. Oh well.... Tories in Alberta are on their way out. The way the Liberals elected their leader was the way to go. Each member voted for their choice based upon information that was available when they voted, most of that info gleaned from the media, but when the delegates got to the convention, they got to meet the candidates and to vote for the best person for the job.

Yeah democracy, its a muthaf$#ker. Do you think all 4,000 delegates got to have a good talk with every leadership candidate. Besides, most of the time when a leader's talking he is just using spin.

There isn't a better system in the world than what Canada has. Except that losers always want to change the odds. I suggest they campaign smarter.

Losers meaning the 60% of Canadian's who have very little say in how government is run since it only takes 40% to get a majority.

I agree Canada has the best system in the world, the PMO has power that many would die for. The only system's which are better are, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, European Parliament, Ireland, Israel, France, etc.

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/en/node/148

10) In the 1990s, Canada ranks 109th among 163 nations in voter turnout, slightly behind Lebanon, in a dead heat with Benin, and just ahead of Fiji.

9) In 1984, the Progressive Conservatives win 50% of the votes but gain nearly 75% of the seats, close to an all-time record for the largest percentage of unearned seats in any federal election.

8) In 2004, more than 500,000 Green voters fail to elect a single MP anywhere, while fewer than 500,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elect 22 Liberal MPs.

7) In 2000, twenty-two candidates become MPs despite winning less than 40% of the votes in their ridings.

6) The 2004 election produces a House with only 21% women MPs, with Canada now ranking 36th among nations in percentage of women MPs, well behind most Western European countries.

5) In 1993, the newly formed Bloc Quebecois comes in fourth in the popular vote, but forms the Official Opposition by gaining more seats than the second place Reform Party and third place Tories.

4) In 2000, 2.3 million Liberal voters in Ontario elect 100 Liberal MPs while the other 2.2 million Ontario voters elect only 3 MPs from other parties.

3) In 1993, more than two million votes for Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservatives translate into two seats – or one seat for every 1,000,000 votes. Meanwhile, the voting system gives the Liberal Party one seat for every 32,000 votes.

And finally, the two chart toppers…

2) In 1984, when competing for the Liberal leadership, Jean Chretien tells reporters in Brandon, Manitoba, he would introduce proportional representation "right after the next election" if he became prime minister.

1) In 1993, Jean Chretien wins the election and begins his ten-year reign as prime minister. In three elections, he never wins more than 42% of the popular vote, but still forms "majority" governments thanks to the current voting system. He never gets around to introducing proportional representation.

[MightyAC]

There are no fully democratic countries in the world. Full democracy does not exist. It is a figment.

That is true. But the United States of America has the greatest level of democracy that is not matched anywhere else in the world.

I feel we should move their system. We can't keep letting elites run our country from the back office.

Are you being facetious or are you just ignorant?! The winner take all style of US government is nowhere near the greatest level of democracy in the world. Luckily they only have two major parties otherwise the level of distortion and wasted votes would be the same as ours.

Are you being ignorant? The US voter has much more say democratically than a Canadian voter.

That is just a fact.

No, I'm not...Can you read? The US voter does have more say at election time than a Canadian voter...are you aware that there are more than 2 countries in the world? Are you also aware that Winner Take All systems leave many voters unrepresented. The post by mikedavid00 stated that "the United States of America has the greatest level of democracy that is not matched anywhere else in the world"... Do you agree with that statement?

[Remiel]

Just one point, Canadian Blue, #2 on that list doesn't really count for anything. Jean Chretien didn't win that leadership campaign, and thus there was no way he could be help to that promise because it was conditional on him becoming party leader and becoming Prime Minister, which didn't happen for another nine years.

[Canadian Blue]

So PR was just a spur of the moment decision?

Would Jean Chretien lie!!!

[MightyAC]

So PR was just a spur of the moment decision?

Would Jean Chretien lie!!!

Would a politician lie? C'mon they all act in the best interest of the country don't they?

Paul Martin supported ruducing the power of the PMO before occuping that office, as did Harper. Both increased the strangle hold that office held on the party, with Harping setting new dictatorial records. Steve-O also supported electoral reform and an elected senate prior to being in power.... I guess power corrupts. Black Jack Layton promised that PR would be a necessary condition to gain his support in a minority government...has anyone heard him speak of electoral reform since? He sold his support to Martin in the form of massive spending increases.

Politicians all support democracy when they have fewer seats than they deserve...when they get more they have no problem with the undemocratic status quo. The only way to get electoral reform is to make it politically popular and that is starting to happen. Canadians are finally starting to accept that there are more issues than healthcare and education.

[normanchateau]

Losers meaning the 60% of Canadian's who have very little say in how government is run since it only takes 40% to get a majority.

The percentage of "losers" was even higher following the January, 2006 election. So-con Harper won the right to govern with a mere 36% of the vote. The losers were the 64% of Canadians who voted for parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens.

[MightyAC]

Losers meaning the 60% of Canadian's who have very little say in how government is run since it only takes 40% to get a majority.

The percentage of "losers" was even higher following the January, 2006 election. So-con Harper won the right to govern with a mere 36% of the vote. The losers were the 64% of Canadians who voted for parties to the left of CPC, i.e., the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Greens.

Not really.. Harper only won a minority government with his 36% of the vote. He doesn't have the power to pass any legislation he sees fit, like a dictator. Our piece of crap electoral system gave Chretien 3 majorities and complete power to pass anything he'd like, despite the fact that he only received 38% to 42% of the vote.

The fact that our electoral system so greatly distorts the election results and gives politicians the opportunity for false majorities is why both Harper and Chretien forgot about electoral reform when in a position to benefit.