Save Democracy! Save Canada!

[BKool]

it is quite common place in Parliamentary systems ... happens all over the world. The most seats rule and in this case, the other 3 parties have more than the new Reform Party has.

There is one important consideration here ... in most countries governed by a coalition, voters have a good sense of which parties their party would be willing to work with to form a coalition. For example, there would be talk about coalitions between parties, these potential coalitions would be discussed in debates, and so forth. In Canada's case however, voters were deliberately misled about a coalition between the Libs and the NDP, even as those same parties were secretly bashing out the details of a coalition.

At the very least, another election should be called now that all the cards are on the table so that voters can make an educated and informed decision, and if they then choose to vote for the Libs, NDP or the Bloc then so be it.

 

[BKool]

Coalitions are fine if they are formed BEFORE the election so people know what they are voting for.

What he said

 

[jawaj]

There are degrees to coalition viability.
I could see the GG approving a coalition between 2 parties that are at least in the same vicinity on the political scale, like the Liberals and Conservatives, but this NDP, BLOC, and Liberal group is a mish mash of extremes.

The proposed coaltion government is between the NDP and the Liberals, but even together they do not posess a majority (kind of like the conservatives.) They will require the support of the Bloc to form a new government and to pass legislation, just as the minority Conservatives were forced to seek out support for their agenda. The Cons, however, decided to play a game of chicken with the opposition and lost.

I would say the Liberals and the NDP have a lot in common, especially since Layton ran a more centrist version of the NDP than we have seen in long time. The NDP/Liberal coalition also got 44% of the popular vote during the last election, whereas the Cons got just 37%. So I think that also gives them a fairly strong democratic mandate for this move.

As someone who enjoys following politics, I think this is great. Canadian politics hasn't been this interesting in my lifetime.

 

[fuji]

Voters must be afforded the opportunity to make EDUCATED choices. That includes having a reasonable idea which parties the party you are voting for is willing to hop in bed with to form a coalition

So, during the election, ask your candidate this question.

Therefore, if a political party flatly and explicitly dismisses any chance of a coalition with another party before an election, even as they are secretly negotiating a coalition with that very same party, it is my opinion that this constitutes a willful deception of the electorate, and is a flat-out subversion of the democratic process.

That is not a problem with the democratic process. That is a problem with the party you voted for, and an indication that you should not be voting for them again in the future.

 

[fuji]

Coalitions are fine if they are formed BEFORE the election so people know what they are voting for.

That is not how our system works. You are describing some alternative, fantasy system that is not the one that is in place in Canada.

Our system is better than this alternative fantasy system that you describe because our system is much more flexible.

You are misunderstanding your role as a voter: Your job is to pick someone you trust to make ANY decision on your behalf, recognizing that circumstances change, and what seems like a sensible policy on election day might be senseless later on.

The solution is not to vote for someone based on their current policies alone, but on your judgement of their ability to craft sensible policies in response to ANY situation.

So on election day it might be sensible to say "I don't think we should have any coalitions" but some time later, as circumstances change, it might well become very sensible to have a coalition.

You should be voting someone you trust to make that judgement call on your behalf. It's often very sensible to make that determination based on party lines--in that case you are voting for the party you believe will best make that decision on your behalf.

In any case you are NOT voting for the platform as it is presented on election day--that should be viewed merely as an example of the types of things the candidate might do. In reality circumstances will change.

I could see the GG approving a coalition between 2 parties that are at least in the same vicinity on the political scale, like the PC and Reform or even Liberals and Conservatives, but this NDP, BLOC, and Liberal group is a mish mash of extremes.

It's not really up to the GG to get involved at that level. If the parties come along and say they have hammered out a deal why should the GG question that? She will give them a chance to prove it on the floor of Parliament, and if it isn't working out, she'll call an election.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Tell us more great scholar of the constitution that does not exist.

 

[fuji]

Tell us more great scholar of the constitution that does not exist.

You are just making yourself look stupid now.

By now you've acknowledged that I was right--that the constitution of Canada exists as a system of customs and traditions and only some parts of it are written down in acts.

So what you are on about now with this--you just look dumb.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

You are just making yourself look stupid now.

By now you've acknowledged that I was right--that the constitution of Canada exists as a system of customs and traditions and only some parts of it are written down in acts.

So what you are on about now with this--you just look dumb.

Thanks for the advise.

I want you to know I take your counsel seriously as I willingly concede you are indeed the expert on looking stupid.

 

[BKool]

That is not a problem with the democratic process. That is a problem with the party you voted for, and an indication that you should not be voting for them again in the future.

Can you fucking read? I didn't say there was a problem with the democratic process, I said the Lib's subverted the democratic process by lying to the electorate. You are either intellectually lazy, or just plain stupid. Either way, your inability to grasp the complexities of politics and your boilerplate responses makes debating you boring. Seriously. Have fun fellas ...

 

[train]

Did you guys feel this way about Harper when he drafted a backroom deal with the Bloc and the NDP to pass a motion of no confidence in the Liberal minority in 2004? He even wrote a letter, which he co-signed with Duceppe and Layton, urging the Governor General not to call an election but instead consider handing over power to his Conservative/NDP/Bloc coalition.

I am just wondering whether you guys think these tactics are OK when they are done by Harper, but not when they are done to Harper.

In any case it seems to me that a coalition of more than half the votes in Parliament has more legitimacy and more of a mandate than a minority government with less than half.

Don't you guys believe in majority rules?

1. Quite a bit of difference between block voting on a non-confidence motion and coalition governing. Even you should be able to weigh the enormity of the difference.

2. None of the people who voted for the Liberals chose Jack or Gilles and none of them wanted to go up the hill together. Absolutely no one wanted Dion as a leader. This is not what the majority of the voters want. This is what the power brokers within the 3 opposition parties want - don't try to imply that they still represent the wishes of the voting public.

 

[train]

Thanks for the advise.

I want you to know I take your counsel seriously as I willingly concede you are indeed the expert on looking stupid.

I'm guilty of it as well , but there is actually no point in debating with someone as consistently fallacious as fuji.

 

[fuji]

I'm guilty of it as well , but there is actually no point in debating with someone as consistently fallacious as fuji.

If it makes you guys feel better about being wrong to insult me knock yourselves out.

 

[chiller_boy]

Canada,

The only country in the world where a mild mannered professor, born in France, unable to effectively communicate in both official languages can rise from virtual obscurity to lead a major political party into a general election, lose that election very handily and become Prime Minister.

God bless Canada!

Great point! I can see hollywod salivating at the idea of THE STEFAN DION STORY starring a revitalized Robin Williams as our hero attempting to speak in a a language vaguely like English.

 

[Heanchman #21]

Harper is much better than Dion.

That's your opinion, not fact.

think about where the country is headed. Dion couldn't keep one party together. What makes you think he will be able to keep three together?

Well Dion is stepping down in May after the next Leadership convention and if he can't keep the 3 together over 4 months the government will fall and we'll be back to an election ... big deal!

Harper brought this on himself (IMHO) by calling an election no one wanted, failing to defeat Dion (which I still can't believe) and by being to pig headed and bullish by ramming through legislation that the other parties felt had to be defeated instead of working with them like minority governments have to do.

Plain and simple.

Cheers.

 

[Malibook]

It's not really up to the GG to get involved at that level. If the parties come along and say they have hammered out a deal why should the GG question that? She will give them a chance to prove it on the floor of Parliament, and if it isn't working out, she'll call an election.

I think the question should be why would she think these 3 stooges can suddenly be on the same page and work together.

You make it seem like this happens often and there are plenty of samplings and recent precedent to which she must conform.
I seem to recall reading that the last time something like this happened was over 80 years ago.
The GG will make a decision based of the arguments presented.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I seem to recall reading that the last time something like this happened was over 80 years ago.
The GG will make a decision based of the arguments presented.

Here's a question; why would the judgement of one appointed official get to decide the fate of an entire democratic nation?

The time is now for serious reform. Either we are British or Canadian. Enough already!

Sorry Lancs.

 

[red]

Here's a question; why would the judgement of one appointed official get to decide the fate of an entire democratic country?

1. Its hardly the fate of an entire democratic country. Whatever she decides the country will survive. The electricity will stay on, hockey night in canada will continue and roommates will remain open. Don't panic.

2. because thats the way our country works. I am not a fan of an unelected GG or the monarchy but thats the system.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

1. Its hardly the fate of an entire democratic country. Whatever she decides the country will survive. The electricity will stay on, hockey night in canada will continue and roommates will remain open. Don't panic.

With the possibility of professor Dijon in charge, there is plenty to panic over.

because thats the way our country works. I am not a fan of an unelected GG or the monarchy but thats the system.

I think it's time for a new system or at the very least, a clean break from England.

 

[red]

With the possibility of professor Dijon in charge, there is plenty to panic over.



I think it's time for a new system or at the very least, a clean break from England.

I would agree to a new system. The GG is appointed by the PM, so the break from england is there already. Your comment re Dion is merely partisan nonsense.

 

[Malibook]

Here's a question; why would the judgement of one appointed official get to decide the fate of an entire democratic nation?

The time is now for serious reform. Either we are British or Canadian. Enough already!

Sorry Lancs.

I agree.
I thought she was just a figure head and I don't think any one person should hold such power.

People should have the choice to vote for this coalition if they are to govern.

If I was the GG, I would tell them all to work out a compromise or we go back to the polls, which would be a waste of time and money for everybody.