Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
In a non two party system where the government holds the majority of the seats in the Commons the current government absolutely does have the authority to speak on behalf of the government.
|
Sure, the government has authority to speak on behalf of the government. It also has authority to speak on behalf of the country. What I said is that "the government does not legitimately have sole authority to speak on behalf of the country", and I stand by that. Our political system does not provide our government the strength of mandate that a true "majority rules" system would. I am strictly referring, here, to the majority of the population, not majority of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
I hate this line of reasoning. He is the individual with the most support. There is no one in power who has more support than him so there is no one more qualified to represent our country to the world.
Muclair only got 30 percent of the vote. And if you want to dig into it, he only received 43% of the vote in the leadership race. By your logic, he isn't even qualified to speak on behalf of the NDP. He should stand up there with Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen anytime the NDP wants to say anything and they should all be allowed to shout their opinions.
The fact is that Canada is a multiparty country with a first past the post election system. There may be better systems, but we have to work with what we have. To help with understanding the system, consider the way the system works without any party affiliation. Every riding elects their chosen MP and sends them to Ottawa. On the first day all 308 of them have a second election to pick a leader. Stephen Harper received 166 votes while Jack Layton took 103, Ignatieff got 34, Duceppe got 4 and May voted for herself. The result is that Stephen Harper has the support of 54% of the House making him the leader of the country with a majority.
|
I understand how the system "works". I also understand how it fails. Harper has a majority of the House, but to me that doesn't give him the same legitimacy (in the logical sense, not the legal sense) that having support from the majority of the population would. Should a non-majority plurality of voters be able to give someone the authority to be our only voice internationally? I don't think it should. I don't think a non-majority plurality of voters should give someone all domestic government power either.
If we had a system where the PM actually represents the majority of the population, I would be much more receptive to arguments that opposition should not be advancing their positions abroad. But we don't have such a system. I argue that we should.
And Mulcair was elected leader of the NDP by a majority, thanks to run-off voting.