Harper runs the country like a king

[MightyAC]

Our country is much too vast and diverse to have PR, if that were so there would be more power focused in central Canada, no I think that more administrative and financial power should be given to the provinces and that the federal gov't should be strictly about foreign policy, the army and the RCMP.

Our current first past the post system already concentrates power in populated areas PR wouldn't change that. I also believe in more autonomy to the provinces but that is a different issue.

Right now we have representative democracy at both the provincial and federal levels. Politicians make important decisions on our behalf. The problem with our first past the post electoral system is the party balance of the government does not even come close to matching how people vote. Are the results of a close vote really valid when the balance of MPs voting isn't correct in the first place? A PR system would fix that.

To protect the East and West from being dominated by central Canada I'd like to see an equal senate with 5 to 8 senators from each province and territory. I have been calling for an elected senate as well but I'm not sure if the people should elect the senate or a proportional house should elect senators. We have to keep in mind that the average Canadian barely graps 1/10th of the issues at election time already.

[MightyAC]

While this is part of the problem, the other part of the problem is that even when there is minority government in power, the PMO has 95% of the power, the rest of the party has 5% and the opposition parties have 0%.

That's not exactly true. Harper has been abusing the power of his office by forcing MPs to choose the party ahead of their constituents but he still doesn't have 95% power in a minority situation. Anything that requires a vote in parliament requires the help of the opposition.

[blueblood]

Our country is much too vast and diverse to have PR, if that were so there would be more power focused in central Canada, no I think that more administrative and financial power should be given to the provinces and that the federal gov't should be strictly about foreign policy, the army and the RCMP.

Our current first past the post system already concentrates power in populated areas PR wouldn't change that. I also believe in more autonomy to the provinces but that is a different issue.

Right now we have representative democracy at both the provincial and federal levels. Politicians make important decisions on our behalf. The problem with our first past the post electoral system is the party balance of the government does not even come close to matching how people vote. Are the results of a close vote really valid when the balance of MPs voting isn't correct in the first place? A PR system would fix that.

To protect the East and West from being dominated by central Canada I'd like to see an equal senate with 5 to 8 senators from each province and territory. I have been calling for an elected senate as well but I'm not sure if the people should elect the senate or a proportional house should elect senators. We have to keep in mind that the average Canadian barely graps 1/10th of the issues at election time already.

your senate would have to be given more power then they would have to be able to create and pass laws then as is with the house of commons. The thing that scares me about PR is that since our population is so concentrated in urban centres, it gives them more power as they would be fielding MPs, and one has to realize what works in urban canada doesn't work in rural Canada. i don't know how you would divide up the MPs elected just based on popular vote i don't know who they'd be representing. Maybe our ridings are too big and have too many people in them, maybe fielding more MPs with smaller ridings might help. This is one hell of a debacle.

[mikedavid00]

So, democracry isn't working because in your riding, a candidate was voted in who you don't like?

It's the *reason* he's being elected. Politicians shouldn't be elected because of their religion. Voters shouldn't be electing politicians because they are having troubles bringing in their relatives from outside the country.

Both are not the point of voting in Canada.

Voting on issues like Aids in Africa is not a valid reason to vote in Canada. This is why I consider my riding to be disfunctial so I don't even bother.

[Saturn]

your senate would have to be given more power then they would have to be able to create and pass laws then as is with the house of commons. The thing that scares me about PR is that since our population is so concentrated in urban centres, it gives them more power as they would be fielding MPs, and one has to realize what works in urban canada doesn't work in rural Canada. i don't know how you would divide up the MPs elected just based on popular vote i don't know who they'd be representing. Maybe our ridings are too big and have too many people in them, maybe fielding more MPs with smaller ridings might help. This is one hell of a debacle.

Again, this makes no sense. PR has nothing to do with urban and rural. Under PR cities will have just as many MPs as they do now and rural areas will have just as many MPs as they do now. The only difference between the two systems is that urbanites will elect city MPs using proportional representation and people in rural areas will be electing rural MPs using proportional representation. This will not change the rural/urban balance in any way (it could if other changes are made along with PR but nobody wants that so it's not in the cards).

[Remiel]

You think only minorities are capable of voting based on religion? Give me some backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, with a proud Muslim as the Conservative candadite and an abrasive Christian as the Liberal candidate, and I'd give the Liberal at least as good a chance of winning as the Muslim.

MightyAC > No, I don't *really* think he should move, but I was speaking with little patience. Next year, I plan to vote in favour of electoral reform in Ontario, and I'm going to DRAG the rest of my family KICKING and SCREAMING to the polls if I have to.

[mikedavid00]

You think only minorities are capable of voting based on religion? Give me some backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, with a proud Muslim as the Conservative candadite and an abrasive Christian as the Liberal candidate, and I'd give the Liberal at least as good a chance of winning as the Muslim.

MightyAC > No, I don't *really* think he should move, but I was speaking with little patience. Next year, I plan to vote in favour of electoral reform in Ontario, and I'm going to DRAG the rest of my family KICKING and SCREAMING to the polls if I have to.

Traditionally though, all politicians were Christians.

And while I do sympathise with the US's illegal immigration crisis, those people coming over are very Christian and have amongst the lowest divorce rate in the world.

So religion is not a factor.

Christians will ellect jews and vice versa.

When you deal with Islam inspecifc, it's a WHOLE other animal.

Let's put it this way, if a Muslim is running for public office and competing with non-believers, it's a brothers DUTY under allah and Islam to support him. It's his first duty. Please don't make me go look up versus from the Quaran. This is in the Quaran and it must be followed.

[Remiel]

Look it up.

[mikedavid00]

Look it up.

No I refuse to. I have looked up numbers to back my arguments more than anyone here and have proven myself to be right each time.

It's very time consuming to look up things that I've looked up a year ago.

A muslim must support another muslim in his endevors. A muslim must also not speak bad about another muslim (this is why the islam community does not speak out against terror by the way.)

But I dont' want to look this up becasue i'm sipping on wine and getting a good buzz going.

[blueblood]

You think only minorities are capable of voting based on religion? Give me some backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, with a proud Muslim as the Conservative candadite and an abrasive Christian as the Liberal candidate, and I'd give the Liberal at least as good a chance of winning as the Muslim.

MightyAC > No, I don't *really* think he should move, but I was speaking with little patience. Next year, I plan to vote in favour of electoral reform in Ontario, and I'm going to DRAG the rest of my family KICKING and SCREAMING to the polls if I have to.

HAH, I have you now, my riding is the definition of your backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, our Tory MP is an immigrant from someplace in Asia and he shellacked the Liberal and NDP contenders who were white and Christian. Both those two combined came up to about half the votes that old Inky got. Like I said a Liberal candidate has as much chance of winning in rural Canada as a blizzard has of occuring during Canada day.

[mikedavid00]

HAH, I have you now, my riding is the definition of your backwards Conservative riding with a mostly white Christian population, our Tory MP is an immigrant from someplace in Asia and he shellacked the Liberal and NDP contenders who were white and Christian. Both those two combined came up to about half the votes that old Inky got. Like I said a Liberal candidate has as much chance of winning in rural Canada as a blizzard has of occuring during Canada day.

And my point was that Christians will vote outside their religion. Islam is another ballgame all together.

Canada does seperate church and state depending on what some here might think. Islam does not believe in the seperation of church and state. It's fundemenatal to their religion.

Thus, I have a non functioning riding so I do not take part.

[Canadian Blue]

And my point was that Christians will vote outside their religion. Islam is another ballgame all together.

Canada does seperate church and state depending on what some here might think. Islam does not believe in the seperation of church and state. It's fundemenatal to their religion.

Thus, I have a non functioning riding so I do not take part.

Like the Liberal MP thats a muslim, and the Conservative MP thats a muslim. I highly doubt that you know that much about Islam or the Koran. Do you know what the five pillars of Islam are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

The Testimony of Faith (Shahadah) - the declaration that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Arabic:God) and that Muhammad is His last messenger.

Ritual Prayer (Salat) - establishing of the five daily Prayers.

Obligatory (religious) almsgiving (Zakat) - which is generally 2.5% of the total savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the annual produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor.

Siyam, Fasting

The Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) - this is done during the month of Zul Hijjah, and is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it. If the Muslim is in ill health or in debt, he or she is not required to perform Hajj.

[normanchateau]

America has cheque book democracy. While the nation may be democratic at the local level, anything beyond small town municiple is won by whomever can cough up the dough, and that is why we hear so many scandals in washington. Anyone who wants to be a Washington prfessional better be ready to fall on their knees and service the lobbiests.

That's laugable.

Washington is not filled with scandal. Canada is filled with scandal. The largest scandals in recorded history. Canada ALWAYS has one scandal or another. This is not so in Washington.

I think Washington is filled with scandal but neither Republicans nor Democrats necessarily view at as such. For example, the US national debt is now 8.7 trillion, the largest recorded national debt in the history of the world. It is rising at a rate of 2 billion per day, the fastest debt rise in recorded history.

In March, 2006, faced with a potential government shutdown, the US Senate voted to raise the nation's debt limit for the fourth time in five years. The debt "limit" is now 9 trillion. The US federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, is now above 60%. Source:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521

If Washington does not see this as the greatest scandal facing their nation, that in itself is a scandal.

Canada's debt declined while the US debt continues to rise scandalously.

The US deficit is yet another scandal. Canada has no deficit. Shame on us for not spending more than we take in unlike the "scandal-free" Bush government.

The US has so far spent 350 billion on the war in Iraq. What have they got to show for their efforts? Is that not a scandal? How much would they have to spend on Iraq for you to view it as a scandal?

[Canadian Blue]

The current administration by Bush is a complete failure, and a show of true incompetence. I'd rather try to follow the lead of John Howard who has been successful in governing Australia.

[mikedavid00]

Like the Liberal MP thats a muslim, and the Conservative MP thats a muslim. I highly doubt that you know that much about Islam or the Koran. Do you know what the five pillars of Islam are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

Yes I do know a bit about Islam (probably more than most here) and have more Islamic friends\co-workers (probably more than most here).

The 5 pillars of Islam is

1 - Get

2 - Into

3 - That

4 - Other

5 - Country

but seroiusly, that has nothing to do with how a Muslim lives is life. The teachings of the Quaran do.

[jdobbin]

The current administration by Bush is a complete failure, and a show of true incompetence. I'd rather try to follow the lead of John Howard who has been successful in governing Australia.

Howard is now trailing in the polls in Australia.

[Canadian Blue]

Only in the past few months, thus far he's had a successful government in Australia.

[Saturn]

Only in the past few months, thus far he's had a successful government in Australia.

Mulroney had a very successful government in Canada. Chretien did too.

[Canadian Blue]

Except Howard is nowhere near as unpopular as Mulroney, and hasn't put that country into a massive mess.

[Saturn]

Except Howard is nowhere near as unpopular as Mulroney, and hasn't put that country into a massive mess.

Chretien did not put Canada into a mess. Mulroney didn't put the country into a massive mess either. Did anyone think so in 1990?

[jdobbin]

Except Howard is nowhere near as unpopular as Mulroney, and hasn't put that country into a massive mess.

They have been behind a year. Labor has a new leader and he is polling very well.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14073