Canadian versus other political forums

[B. Max]

A "staunch conservative"? Hardly. If anything, I am a left-wing extremist, so liberal that I've been banned from Rabble about 12 times.

Maybe kinda like a general Curtis Lemay type liberal.

[Drea]

1993 Federal election - Liberals = 41.24% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

1997 Federal election - Liberals = 38.46% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

2000 Federal election - Liberals = 40.85% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

Hmmm, 13 consecutive years of Liberal majority government and not once did they come close to being 'chosen' by the majority.

Those who are going to go off on ill-informed rants should really think a little more before posting their condescension.

The result each time was a majority government.

In those elections the Liberals got enough votes to win a majority. That means that the rest of Canadians were split between the other running parties.

The Liberals were elected by majority rule -- the other parties split 60%. Now if we only had 2 parties then you would be correct. As it is... we have more than two, thus the majority of the votes went to one party. That's the way it works here in Canada, no mattter how many times you cry "dictatorship!".

That is what democracy is all about.

What are you on about anyway? Your conservative guy is running the country (with a minority, heh) -- are you folks still on about it being a Liberal dictatorship or have you gotten over that crying jag yet?

[Michael Bluth]

The result each time was a majority government.

In those elections the Liberals got enough votes to win a majority. That means that the rest of Canadians were split between the other running parties.

The Liberals were elected by majority rule -- the other parties split 60%.

What are you on about anyway? Your conservative guy is running the country (with a minority, heh) -- are you folks still on about it being a Liberal dictatorship or have you gotten over that crying jag yet?

A majority is greater than 50 percent of the vote. Liberals never got it. Never cared. They always acted as if the majority of Canadians have voted for them.

Nobody is crying here. No reason to be so nasty and ignorant.

wtf is a crying jag anyways?

Maybe if you would read the posts instead of just starting fights with irrelevant and childish terms like crying...

"Our guy" is only running the country because he made the necessary pragmatic choices to win power. OP doesn't appear to agree with those choices.

So if some posters here had their way, i.e. the Conservatives acting like true conservatives in their opinions, we'd be going on 15 consecutive years of Liberal rule. Any interest in actually debating? Or just want to attack Drea? Read the posts...

[Posit]

In Canadian politics holding a majority of the seats in the house is all that is necessary to run the government without any effective opposition. It doesn`t matter if any party receives a 50% majority (which really is only a 25% plus 1 since four official parties fill the house) because whomever controls the government IS a majority government.

Playing with semantics doesn`t make anyone smarter. A Majority IS a Majority Government.

[geoffrey]

Democracy = majority rule. Get over it.

Not really. Look at New Brunswick. Bernard Lord won and increased his share of the popular vote and got kicked out of office due to some riding redistributions. The will of the people has less to do with the Canadian way of governance than you would like to believe.

Democracy isn't majority rule beyond grade 6 studies on ancient Greece. The underlying principles are far from it.

Playing with semantics doesn`t make anyone smarter. A Majority IS a Majority Government.

I strongly disagree. It gives someone the power to rule, yes, but not the moral authority to presume they represent the majority of interests.

Mulroney and Dief have been the only modern PM's to represent a majority of Canadians.

[Pliny]

What do you mean by more politically confrontational?

A one-party Liberal Party of Canada state is not confrontational at all.

After how many consecutive Liberal majorities is it just a matter of going through the motions of being a democracy? 4? 5? 6?

Moral victories are for chumps. Canada is far better of with a pragmatic Stephen Harper as PM than with Paul Martin or Stephane Dion.

I agree with your last statement.

By confrontational I mean The Liberal party of Canada would have had to relinquish a lot of power or start buying the west. The people of the west would have gotten more restless and more demanding. The Liberals would have had the opportunity to continue committing more crimes and digging themselves a deeper hole and......

Call me a chump though....I would have preferred a victory and a moral one.

[Pliny]

Not really. Look at New Brunswick. Bernard Lord won and increased his share of the popular vote and got kicked out of office due to some riding redistributions. The will of the people has less to do with the Canadian way of governance than you would like to believe.

Democracy isn't majority rule beyond grade 6 studies on ancient Greece. The underlying principles are far from it.

I strongly disagree. It gives someone the power to rule, yes, but not the moral authority to presume they represent the majority of interests.

Mulroney and Dief have been the only modern PM's to represent a majority of Canadians.

I agree with this. Since about fifty percent of voters don't vote, government in Canada is not representative of the majority. It is representative of special interests. Interests that vote for their privilege mostly and gain enough support publicly to gain the attention of politicians.

[Pliny]

Of course. That is why myself, along with millions of others, have moved here from places were property rights really do not exist and not in this imagined sense.

Every single generation has this rather bizarre notion that modern epoch is somehow worse now than it was in the past. In 50 years, I too shall most likely be one of those grumpy old men wishing for the good ol' days. It is a generational divide. What we see as progress, you see as unfamiliar change. The reality is that we are healthier, better informed, better connected than all previous generations.

But nonetheless, we seem to be incapable of abandoning this romanticized ideal we have of our own youths. Not that I blame you for it, as this is a common phenomenon.

This portion could also do with an explanation if you have time.

Who are "they"?

What do you mean by better engineering society?

What exactly is "neo-economics"?

I have no wish to return to yesterdays except as lessons of what not to do. They are what brought us to this point. They were the days when people in North America implicitly trusted their governments to do the right thing and they kept the people safe to the point where today, the people just clamor for whatever they can vote themselves from the coffers. The future is what must be looked toward. Vigilance is necessary when it comes to government. As George Washington said,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Briefly, the "they" you ask about are the theoretical economists that have devised economic tools and placed them in the hands of government, all for the public good of course, if it benefit the State, can that be a terrible thing? The theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes are the most prominent.

May I suggest you read a book called "Economics in One Easy Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. I think I have the title correct but perhaps not exact.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Pliny

[marcinmoka]

May I suggest you read a book called "Economics in One Easy Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. I think I have the title correct but perhaps not exact.

I shall most definitely consider your material and pass judgment on it in a few days time. And while this book is renowned for "explaining" non-economists (such as myself) a series of complex principles, I am not sure that is a good thing. While this may very well appeal to my pedestrian knowledge of econ, that fact alone is useless since I am not nearly versed enough in the mathematics of the opposing Keynesian side to be in a position to properly dissect it.

As humans, we have a tendency to drift towards that which is simpler, which can be both an attribute, but just as well, a flaw to be easily exploited.

Anyhow, as per the book, what what I gather, this was a prominent libertarian economist, who by means of this book, preached moreso ideological lessons, than actual economic analysis. I'm sure that this author has more complex, genuine analytical works solidify his arguments, but this, based on what I hear, is no more than a "good" political pamphlet than a critical examination of Keynes.

It's akin to saying you have sailed the 7 seas and seen the world, when in reality you just glanced at a map.

I'll give it a try and report back

Edited August 23, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Posit]

I agree with this. Since about fifty percent of voters don't vote, government in Canada is not representative of the majority. It is representative of special interests. Interests that vote for their privilege mostly and gain enough support publicly to gain the attention of politicians.

Voting really has nothing to do with democracy, since our candidates are already pre-chosen for us and our job is to choose between the the guy we like and the guy we don't. Party policy, decisions made in government and laws passed are out of reach for even the 50% that vote.

We still have an aristocracy in Canada and instead of moving towards democracy, we allow ourselves to lull into an oligarchy.

[Pliny]

I shall most definitely consider your material and pass judgment on it in a few days time. And while this book is renowned for "explaining" non-economists (such as myself) a series of complex principles, I am not sure that is a good thing. While this may very well appeal to my pedestrian knowledge of econ, that fact alone is useless since I am not nearly versed enough in the mathematics of the opposing Keynesian side to be in a position to properly dissect it.

As humans, we have a tendency to drift towards that which is simpler, which can be both an attribute, but just as well, a flaw to be easily exploited.

Anyhow, as per the book, what what I gather, this was a prominent libertarian economist, who by means of this book, preached moreso ideological lessons, than actual economic analysis. I'm sure that this author has more complex, genuine analytical works solidify his arguments, but this, based on what I hear, is no more than a "good" political pamphlet than a critical examination of Keynes.

It's akin to saying you have sailed the 7 seas and seen the world, when in reality you just glanced at a map.

I'll give it a try and report back

In order to sail you must have a grasp of fundamentals. I agree there is no substitute for experience.

Keynes was more about the mathematical aspect of Economics and not the human aspect.

I await your critique on Hazlitt.

[Pliny]

Voting really has nothing to do with democracy, since our candidates are already pre-chosen for us and our job is to choose between the the guy we like and the guy we don't. Party policy, decisions made in government and laws passed are out of reach for even the 50% that vote.

We still have an aristocracy in Canada and instead of moving towards democracy, we allow ourselves to lull into an oligarchy.

I agree that party policy and decisions made in government and laws passed are out of reach of voters. It is the representation that we vote for and who will best represent us. I believe it may have been yourself that mentioned we cannot all be informed enough on all matters to make decisions regarding law. That is the politicians job in my understanding. Often, they don't concern themselves with such but with their appearance in the next election.

We do have to understand the policies and principles of the party we vote for and that has been blurred by confusing labels and slippery definitions of Liberals and Conservatives. What do they stand for? There are blue Tories and red Tories and varying degrees of Liberals that stretch the gamut of the left side of the political spectrum and the same with Conservatives on the right side. Are we voting for extremism, as each refers to the other as extremist.

I believe it is important to make politics and government understandable to the voter. Political parties need to state exactly what direction they plan on taking the nation. In my view, the options we have today limit the direction to that of a larger and more intrusive government. I suppose that is what the people are voting for but are they voting out of receiving privilege for their own special interests or are they voting for good government, understanding that to be treating all equal under the law.

And how is special privilege considered equal?

I agree also that an oligarchy is setting in in this country but let's face it we are really still a colony.

[Posit]

We do have to understand the policies and principles of the party we vote for and that has been blurred by confusing labels and slippery definitions of Liberals and Conservatives. What do they stand for?

No one can understand the policies and principles since they change constantly, depending on whether or not the leaders of the party get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It is the hidden agendas and underhandedness prevalent in Canadian politics that has ruined the system - the institution of government is corrupt IMO and unrecoverable.

I believe it is important to make politics and government understandable to the voter. Political parties need to state exactly what direction they plan on taking the nation. In my view, the options we have today limit the direction to that of a larger and more intrusive government. I suppose that is what the people are voting for but are they voting out of receiving privilege for their own special interests or are they voting for good government, understanding that to be treating all equal under the law.

And how is special privilege considered equal?

I agree also that an oligarchy is setting in in this country but let's face it we are really still a colony.

No amount of education of the electorate will change the way people vote, or the net effect of running government. Policitians and leaders are hand selected by the elite of society and the commoner has no choice but to accept the party decision. Sure it is possible to join party ranks and participate in the process of selection, but it does little good when the majority party decision is controlled by a few party elite. Case in point, Harper is a one-man show, even attempting to silence his members on issues they are responsible for.

Equality - and the equality movement - was created to keep the lower class citizens under control. By offering them the illusion of equality, they are less apt to complain about privilege. The same thing can be said for multi-cultural ism as an attempt by the cadre to slot all minorities into one "multi-cultural" group ignoring individual issues and concerns and slapping a one-size-fits-all solution. By treating all minorities as a single entity the cadre silence them and maintain power over them. The poor, minorities and middle-class are treated all the same with the intent of appeasing us through illusion and myth all the while they do things and fill their pockets from the public purse.

The only solution to creating a truly democratic society is to stand up to the corruption, revolutionalize and take back the government from the elite. This means throwing out the party rule, opening nominations to every individual community and holding elections based on democratic principles including the ability to impeach politicians. This cannot be reconstructed within the framework of Canadian politics, nor can we expect the elitists to revamp themselves out of power. This must be grassroots, without agendas or personal interest clouding the process.

[Bonam]

Government positions should be selected by lottery from qualified (decent education, no criminal record, etc) individuals in the general population. The people that go to all the trouble of becoming a politician just to seek power are the least worthy of actually wielding power.

[jbg]

Voting really has nothing to do with democracy, since our candidates are already pre-chosen for us and our job is to choose between the the guy we like and the guy we don't. Party policy, decisions made in government and laws passed are out of reach for even the 50% that vote.

We still have an aristocracy in Canada and instead of moving towards democracy, we allow ourselves to lull into an oligarchy.

In the US once in a while a candidate not "pre-chosen" gets in, and the results are always a disaster. Examples:

1. Governor of Minnesota - Jesse Ventura; and
   
2. President - Jimmy Carter
   

. Need I say more?

[Posit]

So you endorse an oligarchy then jbg. It doesn't surprise me.

[jbg]

So you endorse an oligarchy then jbg. It doesn't surprise me.

Do you have a better solution?

I was a big supporter of Carter in 1976, in fact worked on his campaign a bit. I still voted for him in 1980. Fact is though that both he and Ventura were unmitigated disasters.

[Michael Bluth]

In the US once in a while a candidate not "pre-chosen" gets in, and the results are always a disaster. Examples:

1. Governor of Minnesota - Jesse Ventura; and
   
2. President - Jimmy Carter
   

. Need I say more?

Yes,

By what metric do you consider a candidate 'pre-chosen'?

Carter was far more a candidate of the establishment than was Bill Clinton.

Clinton left office with a solid record of achievement, albeit tainted by his ridiculous picadillos.

Do explain this pre-chosen theory a little better to us dumb, hick Canadians who you grace with your presence.

[jbg]

By what metric do you consider a candidate 'pre-chosen'?****Do explain this pre-chosen theory a little better to us dumb, hick Canadians who you grace with your presence.

Ask Posit. He was the one who came up with that term. I was scrambling to make sense of it. But to the extent I can, I think it means that in your elections, the party leaders running against each other are by definition people who have risen through the parties' ranks and whose "time has come" to be Prime Minister. Because of our somewhat dysfunctional "primary" systemalmost anyone can become a Presidential candidate.

Carter was far more a candidate of the establishment than was Bill Clinton.

Not really. Carter had far less time in Georgia's Governor's mansion than Clinton had in Arkansas. Also, Clinton formed the Democratic Leadership Counsel ("DLC") in 1986, whihc almost immediatelly gained influence in moving the Democratic Party closer to the center, to pick up voters who perceived that Reagan had moved the GOP far to the right. He also delivered the "keynote" speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention. Granted, it was a very long, boring speech. Clinton was, by the beginning of Bush I's term clearly a man to watch, whereas Carter hit the radar abruptly n January 1976 after doing well in the Iowa caucuses.

By what metric do you consider a candidate 'pre-chosen'?Clinton left office with a solid record of achievement, albeit tainted by his ridiculous picadillos.

No argument there.