[SebC]

On voting systems:

Originally Posted by browna

Nice work, but it is a pipe dream.

Perhaps, but the very fact that I've got a few people thinking about it has made it just a little bit closer to becoming a reality, and it may still be closer than we imagine.

British Columbia actually came within 3% of the 60% threshold necessary to implement a similar voting system (wiki link here) by referendum. If it gets implemented in BC (and there will be another referendum in 2009), I think more Canadians will become aware the possibilities.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I've been reflecting on the old saying that voters get the government they deserve. Wow ... what did we do to deserve this?

According to the political science theories I've described on Page 91, third parties should not exist in Canada. Therefore, my answer to your question is that the ultimate root cause is of this crisis is that our voting patterns are unsuitable for our voting system. That stems from the failure of those who vote for third parties to vote strategically, and therefore I blame them.

================================================== =

On prorogue:

Originally Posted by driveway

Interesting. I did not expect the GG to agree to prorogue and I don't think I like the precedent it sets, ie: that a Prime Minister can suspend parliament when facing a non-confidence vote.

I agree here, that is rather undemocratic and sets a terrible precedent... the next possibility is that a PM asks for to prorogue parliament for a year (the maximum allowed) to avoid a non-confidence vote, and cites this as precedent.

Originally Posted by old-fart

His basic point was that once there is a PM the GG has to listen to the advice of that PM. To not do so would take us back to a state where the crown (the monarchy) is exerting its will on the country.

I also agree that an unelected official overriding and elected official is also bad news.

Which means that there was no "good" choice for Jean. Harper should not have put her in the position where whichever choice she makes sets a bad precedent. He should not have asked for prorogue.

Now, given that he did, the more I think about it, the more I think that Jean failed to choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, the PM is elected and therefore an unelected governor-general should accept his advice. However, Harper has clearly lost the confidence of the house. Accepting Harper's advice against the will of the house contradicts one of the most basic principles of our constitution, the supremacy of the legislature over the executive. By granting prorogue, that has been violated, if not by letter then in spirit.

Likewise, giving Harper an election when the will of the house is to form a government would also violate the supremacy of the legislature, but in this case the precedent is already established. Harper will not get his election unless the coalition fails. I suspect he knows this: otherwise, he would have asked for an election rather than prorogue.

================================================== =

On giving power to the Bloc:

Originally Posted by Gozer

Seats:
Conservatives > Liberals + NDP
Conservatives < Liberals + NDP + Bloc

Seems pretty simple to me.

Bloc < Liberals + NDP + Conservatives

Whilst that may seem irrelevant, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Jade

And yet they are still just as necessary for the coalition to work. The liberals can spin this all they like, but they still need the bloc on board just as much as they do the NDP. Anyone who doesn't see that is drinking a little too much red kool-aid.

Not entirely. If the Liberal-NDP coalition is supported by the Conservatives, then they don't need the Bloc.

Clearly, the Liberals and the NDP have demonstrated here that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Conservatives.

However, as far-fetched as it seems, the possibility exists for the Conservatives to give the Liberal-NDP coalition their assurances that they would not vote against the government in a non-confidence measure.

That would remove the Bloc from the equation.

By not doing so, the Conservatives demonstrate that they would rather give power to the Bloc than support the Liberals.

They are just as willing to "jump in bed with the seperatists" as the Liberals.

Of course, we already knew that. Well, except for those who are drinking too much blue kool-aid.

And whilst it is certainly counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to support the Liberal-NDP coalition, it is the logical action for them to take if the the Bloc are truly as bad as they are saying (well, at least in English - more here).

================================================== =

On farmers:

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why is there a need to insult farmers around here all the time?

People dislike farmers for pretty much the same reason they dislike unions: because they whine a lot, and because they think they're worth more than the market says they are. How many times do we hear "if the government doesn't support me, I can't make a living and will have to sell my farm"? Well boo fricken hoo. If you can't make a living doing something, that's a pretty good indication that you should be doing something else. I don't care that your farm has been a family business for generations, and neither should the government. Furthermore, you often hear them whining about not getting the same levels of services as cities. Well of course you don't! It's far more expensive for the government to provide those services to you in your rural area on a per capita basis than it is for them to be provided to city dwellers. Asking for equal service levels is asking for a massive subsidization from the cities. Adding to the resentment is the fact that their electoral ridings have smaller populations, and therefore they have a disproportioate amount of power over governmental affairs. (And also, they're all uneducated redneck hicks. )