Affiliate Board: Deep Woods (Warhammer Fantasy Battle)
Affiliate Board: Off Topic (General Discussion Board)
Affiliate Board: Centretown Warhammer Club (Gaming Club)
Affiliate Board: GW Ottawa Local
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliate Board: Deep Woods (Warhammer Fantasy Battle) Affiliate Board: Off Topic (General Discussion Board) Affiliate Board: Centretown Warhammer Club (Gaming Club) Affiliate Board: GW Ottawa Local | ||
| Welcome, Register :: Log In |
| Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Big_Willie 13:06:44 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 688 posts
 Reply |
So if we boil it all down, the issue that everyone has is with the Canadian Electoral system?
| |||||||||||
|
Steel_Paladin 13:14:14 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 1320 posts  Reply |
Unprecedented?
John A. MacDonald forged a coalition between his Conservatives, the Clear Grits, and the rebellious Parti Bleu in 1864. This resulted in the birth of our nation in 1867. As far as the Governor General choosing who leads, this occurred in 1926, where Viscount Byng refused the request of Mackenzie King for an election and instead invited the leader of the opposition, Arthur Meighen, to become Prime Minister. These two precedents together provide support for the present situation. So long as the coalition government doesn't flunk a confidence vote (and that'll be all up to the Bloc - what a desperate situation), they will have more seats in Parliament than the Conservatives. In the Canadian system, we elect a member of parliament for each riding, or electoral region. Tradition has it that the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is asked by the Governor General to be his or her Prime Minister - but there is no mention of this, or the office of Prime Minister in any of our constitutional documents. Neither the British North America Act nor the Constitution Act mention it, but we do it anyway. Note here, that we don't directly choose our Prime Minister. We elect representatives from whom the Governor General traditionally chooses a Prime Minister. This is called 'representative democracy', and our form of government is a bicameral constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is the Queen of England, and she is represented by the Governor General, who technically and constitutionally has the power to call whatever shots she wishes. She can't change our constitution, though, since Trudeau repatriated it and brought it home in 1982. This is how the system works in its present state, and has worked since Confederation. If you guys want to change it, form up and lobby for change. Kick out the Queen and elect a President. It takes at least half of the population of Canada and a majority of the provincial Parliaments and the House of Commons to make such a major amendment to the Constitution. I don't mean to be incendiary, and I apologize in advance for any offense I may have caused. I simply mean to educate those who might not already know how Canadian democracy works. Not how I'd like it to work, not how I think it should work, but how it DOES work.
I think you're on to something there, friend.
|
|
Hexx 13:32:49 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 388 posts Reply |
With any luck the Conservatives will have like, what, 12 or so Coalition MP's cross the floor (OK so with alot of luck) and we'll live in happyland.
|
|
GreatHenshini 13:50:12 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 2707 posts
 Reply |
Would it be less democratic than allowing independants to run? Should we only allow people on the ballot if they are part of a party with candidates running in every riding? Don't get me wrong, as charismatic as Duceppe appeared in the debates, I don't support the Bloc since I can't stand special interest groups that get disproportionate amounts of funding(so-called 'equalization' paymets), but the only reason you seem to be more upset about the Bloc than, say, the Family Values party, is that the Bloc actually won seats.
|
|
Matt_Varnish 15:31:17 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 2505 posts GM7 - 3rd Place 2005 GT best painted 2006 40k 12th place The Flesh Wash Adept  Reply |
As an aside, the NWT runs on a consensus gov't, you don't vote for the person from a party, you simply vote for their platform
|
|
Titivillus 15:32:47 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 98 posts Reply |
Well, technically, wouldn't it be more democratic? If they hold more seats than the ruling party and form a coalition whereby those seats are united, then they have - in theory - the support of more of the electorate than the previously ruling party. Parties aren't "voted into power"; they are given power when they receive enough support that they either have a majority, or simply more than their nearest opposition, be it a single party or coalition. That said, I am sure there are a number of people that voted for one or another of the coalition parties that would not like to see whatever compromises have or will be reached, and will feel it is in a violation of whatever values their respective party represents. I don't blame them. But is it better to have another election when we have arrived at this point only through some of the most mind-bogglingly bad political tactics in recent history, and so soon after an election? We will find out soon enough, I guess. Let's face it, though: Harper has managed to do the unthinkable. He has managed to unite all the opposition parties against him when it seemed that they - particularly the liberals - were just going to implode. I almost think he wanted the non-confidence vote - but not the coalition - so he could call another election and win his elusive majority before the Liberals could find a more competent leader. |
|
Comrad_pat 15:48:03 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 71 posts  Reply |
Rick mercer's rant on the matter :
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video.html?maven_playerId=rmrseason6player&maven_referralParentPlaylistId=67c7d02ddecec9284b96e9071a249a58b36737f0&maven_referralPlaylistId=b9f5384555517796d059ea77278f6a2ecb5640dd&maven_referralObject=947975116 |
|
Giguerem 15:57:59 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 1140 posts
GMXII - Best Overall  Reply |
As usual, Rick Mercer hits the nail right on the head.
|
|
Orbital101 16:00:41 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 8698 posts
Autarch
 Reply |
"Danger zones like Thunder Bay and Nunavut" ..LOL
|
|
Giguerem 18:13:38 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 1140 posts
GMXII - Best Overall Reply |
I, for one, welcome our new Conservative overlords.
|
|
dude123 19:41:07 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 714 posts MM - 2nd Place Deep Space Official Smartass  Reply |
I voted for Kodos...
|
|
Comrad_pat 20:12:43 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 71 posts Reply |
No kang clearly has superior foreing policy!
|
|
Feor 23:03:19 Thu Dec 4 2008 Offline 368 posts  Reply |
Two things that came to mind today at various times while chatting with people at work about this.
1) Really, How much of a "Seperatist party" is the Bloc these days? Now I don't keep intimately up to date with polotics, but apart from answering a question from the media about it, when was the last time anyone heard Duccep even talk about seperation? Seems to me that these days the Bloc is just "the French Party". 2) I find myself wondering if there would be this much contention and uproar if the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc had actually combined themselves into an honest to goodness political party for this. Since this coalition is realistically just a political party with a little less beurocracy (sp?) to back it up. Unfortunatly now we won't know for another month and a half. I think at this point Harper has sadly won. Harper is going to ask for the Coalition's input into the budget. If they decide that they'd rather shut him out, Harper wins. Goverment falls at the end of January and it's actually the Coalition's fault since they didn't want to work with the government "out of spite". If they work with him on the budget, he takes their suggestions, files them in the "recycle" folder, and just tables his own budget anyways. The Coalition brings him down, and it's their fault again, since now they voted him out of office when he'd actually been working with them. Only way I see Harper not winning on this one at this point is if his own party turns on him for bringing them to the edge of the abyss, and a whole cadre of Tory MPs go Independant or sign onto the Coalition. |
|
Sargent_D 02:08:16 Fri Dec 5 2008 Offline 1320 posts  Reply |
I really fail to understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to Harper and Conservatives. I know that the political left doesn't hold a monopoly on immaturity and the use of inflammatory language, but I've heard some of the most ridiculous things being said about Harper and the Conservatives.
Sure, negative things get said about Dion (bad leader, weak, etc) and Layton (socialist, communist, video professor, car salesman, etc) by conservatives, but the language use to describe the Cons and Harper by their detractors are so absolutely ludicrous that they can hardly be taken seriously. Here's some of the things I here regularly: -NeoCons (is this a sad attempt to draw a parallel with neo-Nazis?) -Harper = Hitler comparisons. (I mean, comon, does anybody really believe that horseshit?) -Harper = Bush comparisons (almost equally as retarded as the above) -Harper and the Conservatives will "destroy" Canada. (How? and WHY? Seriously, give me something concrete here) -Harper and Conservatives are a bunch of racists (really? that's why they have more visible minorities in their caucus than the Liberals do...) -Stephen Harper is evil. (yes, I've heard that one, see Hitler comparison above) The list goes on and on. While there's a healthy does of political discourse on both sides, it seems like people on the left of the political spectrum display a rather nasty tendency to be completely intolerant of anyone who has political leanings to the right. Now moving on the the subject at hand, I find it also curiously funny that many of the coalition's supporter's are crying foul at the GG's decision to allow Harper to prorogue parliament. "Undemocratic" is the word I've heard used quite often, which is funny because when the coalition's detractor's called the coalition's attempt to seize power without an election "undemocratic" the coaltion's supporters shot back that this was allowed by the mechanisms of our democracy and was perfectly legic and democratic. Well, so was Harper's proroguing parliament. All legit and complete with the GG's stamp of approval. I know it doesn't feel good when the tables are turned, but please try to be consistent! As much as I dislike the Liberals and NDP and as much as I almost hate Jack Layton, I have to admit, it was a good attempt. Ballsy, even. Very ballsy. But it failed. Back to the drawing board fellas!
|
|
Titivillus 03:00:32 Fri Dec 5 2008 Offline 98 posts Reply |
Neo-con is a reference to a type of conservatism, and its inherent beliefs about property, fiscal policy, etc.
|
| Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
people online in the last 15 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 174 at 13:47:56 Thu Nov 18 2021) |
|
| Register :: Log In :: In Power The time is now 12:51:32 Sat Dec 2 2023 |
Deep Space :: Off Topic :: OT Canadian bloodless coup
|
Legal Babble |
