[Mark_M]

So it seems like JJ and the conservatives are going to try and use the sheer force of their stubbornness to sidestep the fact that Canada's political system is a parliamentary democracy. Minority governments serve only with the support of the majority of the house. To take away the other parties' power to overthrow the minority would of course make the minority government a de facto majority. I'm sure the conservatives would like that, but they never did win enough seats for that privilege.

This discussion of the queen and the GG is really just misdirection. The GG has not weighed in on this at all, and she will do nothing more than appoint the leader of the broadest coalition as prime minister. She is not exercising any real power here, and it is disingenuous to suggest that. She is just calling the balls and the strikes.

[Psudo]

llama66 wrote:

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

Apparently the Federal Reserve has been saving money for an economic crisis for decades, probably combined with some deficit spending that will make the problem worse.

Tiler wrote:

Pseudo, your graph made me say a very angry word about six times in a row. I hope you're proud of making me rage.

You probably said a word I never repeat, but I find lately that there is a much greater requirement of will power to continue that trend. I regret that your rage has become appropriate, but it is extremely appropriate.

Canadaka wrote:

You have to consider the relative size of the nations and there GDP. The 30 Billion along with other stimulus in Canada would actualy be a larger percentage of the GDP than what the Americans are spending I think.

US GDP = $13.13 trillion. Canadian GDP = $1.178 trillion. That's a factor of 11, not a factor of 140. What the USA is spending is more than a full digit larger when represented as a proportion of GDP -- namely, 35% vs. 2.5% of GDP. (Both national GDP numbers are according to the CIA World Factbook, estimated as of 2006.)

There is no analysis of this number that does not make it sound worse.

[mtbr]

Mark_M wrote:

So it seems like JJ and the conservatives are going to try and use the sheer force of their stubbornness to sidestep the fact that Canada's political system is a parliamentary democracy. Minority governments serve only with the support of the majority of the house. To take away the other parties' power to overthrow the minority would of course make the minority government a de facto majority. I'm sure the conservatives would like that, but they never did win enough seats for that privilege.

This discussion of the queen and the GG is really just misdirection. The GG has not weighed in on this at all, and she will do nothing more than appoint the leader of the broadest coalition as prime minister. She is not exercising any real power here, and it is disingenuous to suggest that. She is just calling the balls and the strikes.

you can call it shear force of stubbornness but it is in the PMs power to pull the plug on Parliament. It's in the same rule book that says the other parties can form a coalition.

[OntarioJeremy]

The Green Party also support the proposed coalition.

Popular vote in the last election:
Conservative: 37.65%
Liberal+NDP: 44.44%
Liberal+NDP+Green: 51.22%
Liberal+NDP+Bloc: 54.42%
Liberal+NDP+Green+Bloc: 61.20%

You're welcome.

[mtbr]

OntarioJeremy wrote:

The Green Party also support the proposed coalition.

really where did you hear that?

what makes you think everybody that voted Liberal support the coalition?
or NDP?
or the Bloc?

you're making assumptions..

how about the half of Canada who didn't vote?

hell they all like Harper and the Conservatives so they felt they didn't need to vote

87 % of Canadians

[OntarioJeremy]

You don't vote, you don't count

[JJ]

OntarioJeremy wrote:

The Green Party also support the proposed coalition.

Popular vote in the last election:
Conservative: 37.65%
Liberal+NDP: 44.44%
Liberal+NDP+Green: 51.22%
Liberal+NDP+Bloc: 54.42%
Liberal+NDP+Green+Bloc: 61.20%

You're welcome.

Again, it is a dangerous business when the government of our country is determined not according to the stable, predictable rules we have all agreed to be governed by, but rather new, arbitrary standards of "justice" dreamed up on the spot by party leaders and governor generals.

By this logic, I could argue that a military coup against Prime Minister Chretien would have been justified, since he never won a majority of the popular vote. And we should take Trudeau's portrait down from parliament hill, too, since the majority of Canadians didn't vote for his party, either.

Our system of government does not operate according to the principle that the national popular vote matters. We do not live in Italy or Israel or any other country with some sort of "proportional representation" electoral system. We live in Canada, a representative democracy in which winning the largest amount of seats in the House of Commons entitles a political party to form the government.

Dion, Layton, Duceppe, and Madame Jean have no right to arbitrarily change the rules in the middle of an elected prime minister's tenure, and decree that "this is how things will be done from now on."

[Sapio]

llama66 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

They are going to print it.

[Mark_M]

JJ wrote:

Our system of government does not operate according to the principle that the national popular vote matters. We do not live in Italy or Israel or any other country with some sort of "proportional representation" electoral system. We live in Canada, a representative democracy in which winning the largest amount of seats in the House of Commons entitles a political party to form the government.

Dion, Layton, Duceppe, and Madame Jean have no right to arbitrarily change the rules in the middle of an elected prime minister's tenure, and decree that "this is how things will be done from now on."

Of course this is just special pleading. The popular vote doesn't matter, but coalition governments are undemocratic.

[Shablabar]

JJ wrote:

Again, it is a dangerous business when the government of our country is determined not according to the stable, predictable rules we have all agreed to be governed by, but rather new, arbitrary standards of "justice" dreamed up on the spot by party leaders and governor generals.

...

Our system of government does not operate according to the principle that the national popular vote matters. We do not live in Italy or Israel or any other country with some sort of "proportional representation" electoral system. We live in Canada, a representative democracy in which winning the largest amount of seats in the House of Commons entitles a political party to form the government.

Dion, Layton, Duceppe, and Madame Jean have no right to arbitrarily change the rules in the middle of an elected prime minister's tenure, and decree that "this is how things will be done from now on."

Coalition governments like this one have always been part of the 'predictable rules we have all agreed to be governed by'. Every opposition to a minority government talks about it. Even Harper did back during the Martin years. The only difference is that it may actually happen this time -- as Charles Adler said the other day on the radio, Harper gave the opposition a gun and said 'you can shoot yourself, or you can shoot me'. An easy choice to make.

As you said -- winning the largest amount of seats entitles you to form government. Harper formed a government. It didn't work so well. Before going in to another election, the opposition should get a chance, just like Meighen did back in the day. Of course, it didn't work so well for Meighen... but we'll have to wait and see this time around.

[llama66]

Sapio wrote:

llama66 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

They are going to print it.

I hope to christ not, otherwise things are going to really suck, for a long time.

[Psudo]

OntarioJeremy wrote:

You don't vote, you don't count

By that reasoning, if the voters voted to kill everyone who didn't vote in a mass extermination, the mandate would be unanimous and all non-voters would be rightly executed.

If you're going to moderate your argument to apply only to elections, then explain how a vote for one party can be construed to support an unexpected compromise of that party's platform towards a coalition platform.

These votes matter because of the voters' understanding of the system at the time their vote is cast. For 90 years there was no such thing as a coalition government in Canada, and even in the Conscription Crisis it was a party (the Liberals) divided against itself that led to the coalition. Few if any of today's voters were alive when that happened, and it is still hardly a precedent for the modern, surprise coalition of less-than-first past the post parties with no platform in common. The principle of voters' understanding of the system and twisted the results into something other than voters' intent, something other than an informed democratic election.

It's legal. It may happen. But it will not be remembered well, and will serve only to further discredit the concept of Canadian coalition governments in the future.

llama66 wrote:

I hope to christ not, otherwise things are going to really suck, for a long time.

Amen. But they will.

[CKASlacker]

Sapio wrote:

llama66 wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Incidentally:

Source

I don't know how $30 billion in Canadian spending would have any relevant effect compared with the 140 times as much that the USA is planning to spend.

wow. Where is the states going to get that kinda money?

They are going to print it.

Have't we seen this movie before? Say, Germany during the 20's and 30's (*) printing money to pay off huge war reparations? How did that turn out again for them?

(* No, I don't really think it will get that bad - but sobering nonetheless).

Psudo: thanks for the graphic - one of most disturbing images I've seen in a long time.

[llama66]

CKASlacker wrote:

Have't we seen this movie before? Say, Germany during the 20's and 30's (*) printing money to pay off huge war reparations? How did that turn out again for them?

(* No, I don't really think it will get that bad - but sobering nonetheless).

Psudo: thanks for the graphic - one of most disturbing images I've seen in a long time.

yea I remember this movie too. the ending had alot of goosestepping and people asking "ihre papiers, bitte" and some people being sent to the ghetto, really it sucked.

[CKASlacker]

llama66 wrote:

yea I remember this movie too. the ending had alot of goosestepping and people asking "ihre papiers, bitte" and some people being sent to the ghetto, really it sucked.

Especially when you consider the straightforward way to connect these dots:

Germany Depression --> Rise of Hitler --> usurpation of Chancellorship --> WWII --> Auchswitz

I'm not saying that this will lead to some sort of holocaust in any shape or form as to what happened then... but the point is that a lot of bad may come of this in the long run.