Wow, not ONCE did I say the stay-at-home spouse had to the the woman. Those are your sexist words, not time.So the working husband get to vote alone in a family based solely on the amount of taxes he pays. Who cares what his wife thinks or wants. So i guess we're gong back to the early 20th century when wives were chattel and had no rights to vote, only this time the wives who worka nd pay taxes get the vote. How many votes does the taxpayer get, 1 vote for each $5000 dollars in taxes. That would mean a mega rich business would get ~100's of votes. Welcome back to Victorian Times.
*0% of Canadian women earn a salary but many can little or no income tax after deductions. Do they get a vote. The 20% who don't work don't get a vote. So we have second class citizens. how about stay a home dads, more second class citizens. How about the many seniors who don't pay any taxes. Do they lose they vote.
I've voted for the Liberal quite a few time but for the other two parties totally about an equal number of times. So it's hard to pigeon hole in any way. So it's about a 50/25/25 split. Before Harper came on the scene most high level analyst would say that the three major parties were an part socialist, specially when compared to other non Scandinavian countries and Canada by definition a socialist country.
Has there ever been a party anywhere that believed like you. I suspect not. That should tell you something, it's a bad or unworkable idea.
Left unspoken is her sense of moral superiority that although the electorate has spoken, they are mistaken and she "knows the real truth", hence the ballot box is unimportant because it delivered an "improper result" and of course she gets to make the decision as to what is or is not proper hence her talk of "Arab Spring" to put not too fine a point on it, sounds as though she is advocating sedition.She was interviewed in a video after she was fired. She made the point that conservative values are not the values of a majority of Canadians and the popular vote reflects that.
No at all, but the stay at home spouse would have their vote taken from them. Ihad to make it clear both sexes are involved here. Nothing sexist about it, just clarity.Wow, not ONCE did I say the stay-at-home spouse had to the the woman. Those are your sexist words, not time.
I'm sure in her mind that a revolution is the best way to undo the mistakes democratic process.Left unspoken is her sense of moral superiority that although the electorate has spoken, they are mistaken and she "knows the real truth", hence the ballot box is unimportant because it delivered an "improper result" and of course she gets to make the decision as to what is or is not proper hence her talk of "Arab Spring" to put not too fine a point on it, sounds as though she is advocating sedition.
Your comments were indeed sexist whether you believe so or not, whether intentional or not. But whatever.No at all, but the stay at home spouse would have their vote taken from them. Ihad to make it clear both sexes are involved here. Nothing sexist about it, just clarity.
i noticed you couldn't or would come up with country, government or political party anywhere that share your views. You had to try and snare me on some non existent sexist remark.
I'll let other members to figure out you point on the sexist comment. I notice you didn't explain why it was sexiest , very DM.Your comments were indeed sexist whether you believe so or not, whether intentional or not. But whatever.
Obviously, because nobody is doing it already it must be a bad idea. That's the kind of thinking that never allows problems to be solved, and the reason we keep ending up with bad governments.
Remember, once upon a time the consensus was that the earth was flat. By your logic, it would have been stupid for anyone to think it was round. Look how that worked out.
What do you mean by "bulk"? Does less then 40% in your world mean "bulk" :- bulk: , mass, absolute majority, volume, majority. The fact that the reason for an election is to ENDORSE representatives. Many of those representatives do were not endorsed by a majority of their electorate who voted. You can SURMISE that people who voted Liberal, NDP and Green ALSO support the Cons, but why even have an election then?You are making an assumption that everybody in that 60% does not support the tory platform, iffy at best. The preferences of the bulk of the eligible voters who did not vote are also not know, to simply assume that thye are anti tory is stupid .The platform that the Tories ran on was published and debated for several months, the bulk of the population apparantly liked it enough to approve of it during the election, that the bulk of the non voting eligible voters did not turn out is interesting as well, if they had really disapproved of the platform I expect they would have shown up to vote against it.
It is possible that she did... how do you know she didn't?I'm sure in her mind that a revolution is the best way to undo the mistakes democratic process.
As a long time Liberal voter I say that instead of her little protest, she should have gotten off her ass and campaigned aginst Harper.
But boy that was a VERY long time ago - since the time of the Greeks, educated people have known that the world is a sphere.Remember, once upon a time the consensus was that the earth was flat.
She said no such thing. the fact is, a majority of Canadians voted against Harper. If you are gonna say ..eh! it's our system. It may be a system, but how can you call a system that delivers a majority govt that was NOT the preference of 60% of voters a "DEMOCRACY"? By that stretch Bahrain is a democracy.. since about 40% of people support the leader.Left unspoken is her sense of moral superiority that although the electorate has spoken, they are mistaken and she "knows the real truth", hence the ballot box is unimportant because it delivered an "improper result" and of course she gets to make the decision as to what is or is not proper hence her talk of "Arab Spring" to put not too fine a point on it, sounds as though she is advocating sedition.
Getting support of 40% is now "decisive"?in the immediate wake of a decisive election
Sure it can be in a Parliamentary democracy if the Liberals had won you would have said so.Getting support of 40% is now "decisive"?
So people in public housing don't vote? You're just flat wrong, they do. And voting based on income is a retarded idea that would disenfranchise millions of people and ultimately lead to some sort of violence.Voting rights based on being a taxpayer happen today (all municipal voters are property tax payers, or people who pay property tax via rent) so it can't be all that idiotic.
I didn't object to the notion that 40% leads to a majority, I like first past the post better than the alternatives. I objected to your assertion that it was a "decisive" result. It was not. Over 60% voted against the government.Sure it can be in a Parliamentary democracy if the Liberals had won you would have said so.
Yes she did, and since the majority of Canadians want to retain the current system. . .She said no such thing.
