[Donny_Brasco]

Kjorteo wrote:

The notion of "A + B + C combined have more votes than D, therefore A wins" is utterly ridiculous. If we were operating under that system, the Alliance+PC parties would have been ruling for ages now, Al Gore would have won in 2000, and who knows what else. If someone decides to vote for the NDP in the next election, they are not voting for the Liberals. The Alliance+PC realized this and solved the problem themselves when they became the Conservatives. Why can't you?

I think A, B and C win if you add them together. They must do what Harper can't though, and that is share their toys and listen to each other, AND let each other speak and voice their opinions.

Withour working together then they are doomed to fail too, but what makes this so much better is what they've learned in the last month from Steveh Harper...without each other they are nothing.

[RUEZ]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

.without each other they are nothing.

No they are still nothing. Our new PM is someone who was resoundingly rejected just over a month ago. I predict some interesting times in the next few months.

[Donny_Brasco]

Saxon wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

The Torys recived less votes and got less seats then needed to form a majority government.

The GG has the right to appoint a prime minister from a coalition of political parties with the most seats in the House of Commons.

*rubs my aching temples* The party with the most seats in the House of Commons is the CONSERVATIVE party. When will you get that through your thick skulls?

Read it again - she can appoint a PM from a "COALITION" of parties with the most seats. Without help from one of the three Harper does not have anything.

The three of them together do have a Majority of the seats. and that is totally within the rules, ethical and democratic that the three groups work together to form a government.

[Donny_Brasco]

RUEZ wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

.without each other they are nothing.

No they are still nothing. Our new PM is someone who was resoundingly rejected just over a month ago. I predict some interesting times in the next few months.

Thanks for your OPINION.

[Donny_Brasco]

The country should be ruled by the people elected to govern it.

Why would Harper make such a tragic mistep and ruin his governments chance at governing?

Now the other elected people who have the votes and the seats have that same chance. That is a democracy.

If you don;t like it feel free to leave and find another.

[Biblesmasher]

RUEZ wrote:

because the Canadian electorate didn't want it.

Yeah you wanna bet? Oh yez...Im POSITIVE that most people that voted NDP, Liberal, and Green in the election with the most green rhetoric in history, are gonna be crying their eyes out if Mr oilsands doesnt get to Govern. Yeah, also having their favoured party have some say in the running of the country as opposed to ZERO say would suck all to high hell. I know Im all torn up about it.

Face it guys, the only people that care are the people that went blue. Sad day.

[Donny_Brasco]

Saxon wrote:

I am a National Socialist. I DON'T like democracies. This very incident we have with traitors forming a coalition highlights EXACTLY why I have a grave dislike of democracy.

Typical Con, even when elected dislikes the freedom of the people to elect their own government.

Good luck with that movement. My guess is you spend the rest of your life angry and disenfranchised.

People are out to get you, really they are. Its a conspiracy. Don;t tell anyone I told you.

[Biblesmasher]

Kjorteo wrote:

I'm American. Is that dispassionate enough? This obviously has no bearing on me.

Considering one scenario is the results of the last actual democratic election, and the other is a proposal hatched by party leaders that would involve the democratically-elected Prime Minister being fired by a former talk show host appointed to a beauty pageant position using powers that are ordinarily just for show, then no, I don't quite see the equivalent. I will concede that the Canadian electoral process is not without its flaws--being American, I sure do love voting directly for the President instead of just appointing him via his being the party leader with the most seats, for example--but this is absurd.

If they wanted a democratically-elected coalition government, they should have ran as a coalition before the election and thus tried to get their coalition democratically elected. Or, they could do what the Alliance and PCs did. It seems to be working fairly well for them. Except that, as I pointed out earlier, even the Liberals+NDP isn't enough to match the Conservatives now. You need to include the Bloc Quebecois, which...really. The Bloc Quebecois in a national coalition. Come on, now.

Hmmm perhaps I should have said any OTHER dispassionate observer...I stand corrected.

I'll concede the American system also has its flaws and that having a system that more easily filters out moronic cowboys(Bush wouldnt have lasted 5 mins in this country) Suits me just godamn peachy. None the less, first past the post is an utter outrage in my opinion with the only one suitable counter weight bieng what is happening now. In the end, really, as imperfect as this coalition is, its a representation of MORE voices in the electorate than the travesty of 38% of the country setting the agenda(which in this time of terrorism concerns and Global warming has them on one side and the rest of the country on another).

And the Bloc joining the coalition is no more ugly then them being in the house in the first place. They're an embarassment to Canada but it is what it is. All I care about here is the laws and rules as they exist and making sure we follow them.

[HaRdLy]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

My guess is you spend the rest of your life angry and disenfranchised.

People are out to get you, really they are. Its a conspiracy. Don;t tell anyone I told you.

The pot calling the kettle black.

[Thanos]

Biblesmasher wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

I'm American. Is that dispassionate enough? This obviously has no bearing on me.

Considering one scenario is the results of the last actual democratic election, and the other is a proposal hatched by party leaders that would involve the democratically-elected Prime Minister being fired by a former talk show host appointed to a beauty pageant position using powers that are ordinarily just for show, then no, I don't quite see the equivalent. I will concede that the Canadian electoral process is not without its flaws--being American, I sure do love voting directly for the President instead of just appointing him via his being the party leader with the most seats, for example--but this is absurd.

If they wanted a democratically-elected coalition government, they should have ran as a coalition before the election and thus tried to get their coalition democratically elected. Or, they could do what the Alliance and PCs did. It seems to be working fairly well for them. Except that, as I pointed out earlier, even the Liberals+NDP isn't enough to match the Conservatives now. You need to include the Bloc Quebecois, which...really. The Bloc Quebecois in a national coalition. Come on, now.

Hmmm perhaps I should have said any OTHER dispassionate observer...I stand corrected.

I'll concede the American system also has its flaws and that having a system that more easily filters out moronic cowboys(Bush wouldnt have lasted 5 mins in this country) Suits me just godamn peachy. None the less, first past the post is an utter outrage in my opinion with the only one suitable counter weight bieng what is happening now. In the end, really, as imperfect as this coalition is, its a representation of MORE voices in the electorate than the travesty of 38% of the country setting the agenda(which in this time of terrorism concerns and Global warming has them on one side and the rest of the country on another).

And the Bloc joining the coalition is no more ugly then them being in the house in the first place. They're an embarassment to Canada but it is what it is. All I care about here is the laws and rules as they exist and making sure we follow them.

Maybe you guys can bring in your beloved proportional representation in after the Dion/Layton/Duceppe take over. It should help you win by more the next time.

[ShepherdsDog]

HaRdLy wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

My guess is you spend the rest of your life angry and disenfranchised.

People are out to get you, really they are. Its a conspiracy. Don;t tell anyone I told you.

The pot calling the kettle black.

[Biblesmasher]

Kjorteo wrote:

[i] The Alliance+PC realized this and solved the problem themselves when they became the Conservatives. Why can't you?

Because two party systems are inferior to multi party systems.

[Toro]

Saxon wrote:

Come now, a compliment from me is the best thing to ever happen to you. Were I you, I would print out my post, frame it then place it up against your main living room wall for all to see.

I always used to think to myself "This is a pretty good forum but what would make it perfect is a witty Nazi."

And now we have one.

At least for the moment.

[Biblesmasher]

Thanos wrote:

Maybe you guys can bring in your beloved proportional representation in after the Dion/Layton/Duceppe take over. It should help you win by more the next time.

Ah... you mean have the representation actually reflect the will of the people?? No! Who would want that?!?

Um yah...maybe "we" can. That would be phenomenal. Then we can get some greens or some other smaller parties in there.

[JJ]

What offends me the most is the total breakdown in rule-based government this represents. If Stephane Dion becomes prime minister then Canada will no longer have a stable or predicable system of government with clear laws and conventions, but rather some sort of chaotic, "anything goes" Banana Republicanism.

For a constitutional democracy to properly function there must be a clear understanding between the rulers and the ruled. When people go to the ballot box to vote they must clearly understand the political consequences of their actions, and have faith in the legitimacy of the results.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy in which we elect a single man or woman from our community to represent our interests in the national parliament. When a political party controls the plurality or majority of seats in the parliament, that party becomes the government of Canada, and controls the executive.

We have many political parties, and all aspire to become the government of Canada. In the previous election Jack Layton described himself as a "Prime Minister you can trust" and he often polled neck-in-neck with Harper when Canadians were asked whose style of leadership they trusted to best rule the country. Stephane Dion polled very badly on these questions, and his dismal leadership is probably why his party did so badly in the popular vote (26%, lowest in 140 years) and in terms of seats (103, lowest in two decades).

I voted Conservative, but I would vote NDP as my second choice because I think it's a more honest party and I respect (or did) Layton's leadership. However, I am certainly now glad I did not vote NDP because in doing so I would have evidently been electing Stephane Dion prime minister of Canada. Can one ever, really, vote NDP in good faith again? Why does the party even exist, if it is simply a tool used to help install the Liberals in power?

There is absolutely nothing illegitimate about Harper's government that justifies a backroom coup to depose him. Almost no modern prime minister of Canada has won the popular vote. This is the nature of democracy in a multi-party system such as ours. Our governments come to power because, through the principle of representative democracy, they are supported by the representatives of the most communities in the country.

If you do not like representative democracy and would rather we lived in a pure democracy, or some other crazy European system, fine. Work to get rid of the constitution we have and replace it with something else. But what the Liberals and the NDP have evidently decided to do, out of nowhere, is reject the rules and conventions that form the very core of our system of government based on their own individual fancies of what is more "just" or "proper" to them. And now the Governor General will be expected to decide the future of the country according to her own individual fancies, as well.

This should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue about the continuity of stable and predictable government as it has always been in the history of Canada, and as it always should be, until we the people explicitly agree to reject it.