[CKASlacker]

saturn_656 wrote:

Quote:

And the Greens have a seat now, in spite of themselves.

Because the Green Party put the bulk of its efforts into one riding just to get Elizabeth May into Parliament.

Their share of the popular vote in 2011 was only 3.9%.

That's my point -- that's the way forward in a FPP system. Get all of your supporters to move into a few ridings, and get them elected to Ottawa. Seems a bit nonsensical to me.

[Bruce_E_T]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Quote:

Despite the monarchy's problems, changing our system would be like redoing the entire brake system in your car over a scratched brake pedal. Yea, you no longer have a scratch on your break pedal, and you do have a new brake system. But you just wasted oodles of dollars on parts for a system that wasn't broken, and if you fucked one part of your new system up, it could lead to colossal failure, up to and including your demise and the demise of others.

Why fuck with they current system when just the process of reform, never mind the results of it, could irreversibly fracture and destroy our nation? The reward-risk ratio just doesn't justify the effort or expense.

Exactly. I believe it was Jean Chretien who said something to the effect that Canada's system may be offensive in theory but it worked in practice.

The monarchy may be archaic but it is our History and really no longer holds any influence over our affairs.

I do truly dread any sort of radical reform. Some gradual improvement might be in order but even that holds little hope for becoming established.

[ShepherdsDog]

The Liberals need to shed the more left leaning elements from their party if they want to return to power. They have to ask themselves who they are in competition with, the NDP for official opposition, or the Conservatives for actual government. The bulk of Canadian voters don't want the social engineering BS. They want fiscal conservatism without any social conservatism. Time for them to return to their liberal(in the classical sense) roots and leave the socialist BS to the NDP.

[Lemmy]

Exactly. The Libs need to be, well, the new Progressive Conservative party. Progressive on social issues, conservative on spending.

[JJ]

Doesn't that describe every single party that already exists?

[ShepherdsDog]

It worked well for most of Canadian political history...we like shades of grey, as opposed to polars

[JJ]

It works well in all democracies ever. It's hardly a Canadian thing.

[ShepherdsDog]

JJ wrote:

Doesn't that describe every single party that already exists?

Thge NDP pushes the political envelope for most Canadians, which demonstrates just how conservative(Red Tories and Blue Liberals cloud the lines even further) we really are....much like the old Democratic and Republican parties of the 70s and 80s...the Tea Party and Talibaptist elements have made the differences a little more pronounced now.

The provincial NDP parties were aware of how conservative the canadian electorate is, and capitalized on it. They stayed pragmatic and aimed at the center, attracting the liberal voters in areas that had no real Liberal Party, or one that had no hope getting elected using the despised Liberal banner(no matter that their policy differed from the federal Liberal Party of Canada).

It's only Quebec's protest vote(and the NDP's now deceased demagogue, Layton), which has a more radical political scene than the rest of Canada, that has allowed the NDP to gain its position as the official opposition. The NDP could never form the government of Canada.

[Unsound]

I think it's mostly a matter of marketing. AS the parties mostly occupy a lot of the same ground politically I think it often comes down to who can convince Canadians they can be most trusted to actually follow through on what they've promised.

I think it's the lack of trust brought on by a cynical "say anyting to win" attitude that led to the liberals downfall, and I don't doubt it'll be the same for the conservatives.

[Gunnair]

JJ wrote:

Doesn't that describe every single party that already exists?

That depends. Each is conservative in spending based on their political ideology - I.e. it is likely the NDP would be conservative on say Defence spending while the CPC is conservative on spending on certain social programs such the LGR. They party that finds the right fiscally conservative balance coupled with a progressive liberal social policy will likely be the victors on election night.

[Murray_Smith]

Thanos wrote:

Canada's system is remarkable for it's stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their presidents and republics, their coalitions of minority parties, and their proportional rep. We don't need any of it.

"My police state's system is remarkable for its stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their criminals and lawyers, their revolving-door jails and their due process. We don't need any of it."

[andyt]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Canada's system is remarkable for it's stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their presidents and republics, their coalitions of minority parties, and their proportional rep. We don't need any of it.

"My police state's system is remarkable for its stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their criminals and lawyers, their revolving-door jails and their due process. We don't need any of it."

eh?

[Gunnair]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Canada's system is remarkable for it's stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their presidents and republics, their coalitions of minority parties, and their proportional rep. We don't need any of it.

"My police state's system is remarkable for its stability and is rightfully the envy of the world. The rest can keep their criminals and lawyers, their revolving-door jails and their due process. We don't need any of it."

Please, feel free to dazzle us with the merits of the republic.

[Psudo]

Thanos seems to be praising the majority government, (for lack of a better term) single-party rule that happens in Canada between elections. This is better, says Thanos, than the ideological compromise inherent to European-style multi-party coalitions or the polarizing conflict of an American-style system where different parties can run different parts of the government at the same time. And proportional representation is designed to make these kinds of multi-party governments run better; in Canada, it would be more likely to result in minority governments or increase the incentive to create multi-party coalitions than to pursue the Canadian ideal of a majority government. Is that about right, Thanos?

There are advantages to that. Assuming there are no internal party disputes, the Prime Minister can get stuff done a lot more easily and with less partisan bickering than in multi-party governments. It also forces the opposition party to make a lot of their criticisms of the party in power very public, since their ability to stop bad policy is largely rooted in their ability to win the next election.

It is worth mentioning that the worst excesses associated with single-party rule are prevented in the Canadian system, too. No confidence votes, constitutional limitations, and the time limit for a new election ensure that the majority party in a majority government is not truly unopposed. The rather moderate nature of Canadian culture helps prevent radical excesses, too, simply because not a lot of folks particularly want radicalism; that protection is not really provided by the political system, though.

There is something to be said for aggressive argument as a test of the ability of ideas to endure aggressive criticism. That kind of critical analysis is more likely to be present in a confrontation between parties than internally within a party seeking unilateral reelection in an all-or-nothing system. One of the most damning criticisms of the US system is the reduction in such critical analysis as the two sides develop mutually exclusive worldviews with less and less common ground to argue from. That's a cultural change; why would you want the fundamental institutions of your government to motivate that same reduced discussion of ideas?

I think the breakdown of debate between the ideologies in the USA comes from two sources: the ideological polarization of the parties (which can probably trace it's history to the Reagan era), and the internet's ability to provide ideologically pure news sources that "preach to the choir" more effectively than ever before. These have both led to the parties tightening the ideological reigns and shrinking the "big tents" in a way that works contrary to effective public debate. But Canada's parties have always been ideologically pure in that same sense, and you're praising that and it's causes as virtues. I don't understand that at all.