The next federal election: Does it matter who wins?
- Thread starter moviefan
- Start date
Actually Chrétien got closer to 2 out of 5 votes which beats Harper's 1 out of 3, though not by much. What's interesting is how the PC and Reform votes totalled way more than Harpo's ever managed to score. In spite of a puffin-poop campaign aimed at the most tempting target ever. And what really matters in our democracy is getting stuff through the Commons. Although King Harpo's made it clear it matters not to him. The gar' always made sure he got the seats.
I assume the other stuff refers to the Iggman, and note they don't address his fitness for office or his political skills, just a mistake about his citizenship. Why you imagine I should care I do not know.
How's the view in that sand? Wilson's policies created prosperity for a decade right up until Paul Martin decided to further increase the annual surpluses by gratuitously downloading onto the provinces !?!
Doesn't matter anyway, 'cause Harpo spent it all. Way, way more than anyone else ever imagined, and cut taxes so we'd go even deeper in the hole.
Biut with your head where it is you have a good view of holes.
Standing by for arsehole joke in response, sir!
Finally, a liberal admits that a majority of Canadians didn't vote for Chretien. Hypocritical to keep throwing it at Harper.
In a multi party system like we have in Canada, now numbering 5, the majority will of canadians will not vote for the winning party most of the time, no big deal. Harpo knows he's not a majority leader, but just thumbs his nose, because he knows he can get away with it and probably stay in power. He has surprised me with hi longevity but it's been more a function of a weak opposition than his skill set.
The hypocrisy lies in comparing what Harper does today, with what he said when he was in opposition.
He used to rail about the unelected senate interfering with the will of the House, now he relies on it.
He used to demand that the opposition parties be able to form a coalition and unseat the minority government, now he calls that outrageous.
He used to demand greater accountability from the government, now he's the worst offender.
The reality is that all of the things the Conservatives stood for when they were first elected into office Harper has betrayed. It's a classic example of a politician being corrupted by the taste of power--I believe he was well intentioned when he was first elected, now he has become jaded, cynical, and arrogant.
He now embodies all the things he denounced when he was first elected.
He used to rail about the unelected senate interfering with the will of the House, now he relies on it.
He used to demand that the opposition parties be able to form a coalition and unseat the minority government, now he calls that outrageous.
He used to demand greater accountability from the government, now he's the worst offender.
The reality is that all of the things the Conservatives stood for when they were first elected into office Harper has betrayed. It's a classic example of a politician being corrupted by the taste of power--I believe he was well intentioned when he was first elected, now he has become jaded, cynical, and arrogant.
He now embodies all the things he denounced when he was first elected.
Nice spin...... but not quite and I don't have the time today to point out the obvious spin. I voted for Harper in 06 and 08 and will again. I don't vote for thieves or communists so there really isn't much choice. Where's the Marijuana Party?
I live in Canada douchebag, not the U.S.
I do not support communists who do nothing, earn nothing, contribute nothing, and suck at the tit of the taxpayer like all socialists and the parties they support.
No. Cretin—he was just good at the usual dirty business of politics. And consistently got more votes, as well as seats.
What's hypocritical is claiming that Harpo—who has yet to get a majority of Commons seats—has somehow 'won' any elections. But that comes naturaly to supporters of Nr. Hypocrite; He is after all the guy from the party of reform who was gonna make everything more democratic. Everything from election dates, to an elected Senate so the will of the people would prevail. Turns out he meant the will of the one in three imposed by any and all means available, and who cares what he promised or said. We'll leave aside his lies about principle or policies in other areas, like deficits, just noting that as a man who has yet to admit his government or his leadership made a mistake, they can only be lies or hypocrisies.
This is why we need a proportional representation system so the will of the majority is respected and it is very difficult for the conservatives to elect even a minority never mind a majority. The vast majority of Canadians are anti-Conservative.
Ya that really works well in countries like Israel. How many small special interest parties do they have in their parliament. Guys like Harper have shown they can't handle a 5 party minority government. Could you imagine how much work wouldn't get done in a parliament with 30+ parties. There are a number of system out there and I understand some of them but I don't know which is best.
Your statement about the anti-conservative feeling is kind of obvious seeing that the conservative party of today is the least social-minded of the major parties and then throw in the automatic 9% garnered by the PQ, then you be in a position where a single party holding an outright majority will be a rarity.
The vast majority of the world's democracies use PR and it works very well. Isreal has the lowest threshhold for entry of a party so they have many. The fact is, in Isreal they really form 2-3 party coalitions very fast. The abinet has many parties in it.
Yet they don't use the same version of PR. There are a number of different variations and that's the rub; which to choose. How many of those countries have parliamentary systems? They can't deal with the EEE Senate without major headaches. What make you think they'll get PR right in the next 100 years?
Let's work on getting more people out to vote first.
Requiring all the various different opinions and attitudes in the country to sort themselves into one of only two groups to pick their representatives has almost nothing to do with democracy. Just fine for deciding a particular question yea or nay, but after that, any resemblance to government by thepeople stops, and it turns into football in suits. Which is why American Conventions look like SuperBowl half-times. Sadly, without the added-value of wardrobe malfunctions.
If two party winner take all was the best system, it would long ago have swept the world. It actually has: it's at the core of every dictratorship. The Ins vs. the Outs. The only difference we enjoy in our version, is scheduled elections, rather than surprise gunbattles.
Social Democrats exactly like the NDP have run the most efficient, fairest nations on earth, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc for many years. They have some of the highest standards of living, the least poverty, etc
EB;
Just a note, Canada is considered, on the global stage, one of social democratic countries in the world
