Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
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.
|
Kinda irrelevant because our current system doesn't work based on a majority of the population. The Conservative government owns the majority of the seats in the house of commons under the current rule, so stating the whole population argument means nothing.
And because of the multiple party rule you could argue that Mulcair has even less of a right to speak foreignly against the government and whoever is leading the Liberals even less.
As it stands I am ok with an elected official debating government policy within the house, that's their job. But going to a foreign government and speaking against the policy of the government which has the majority of the seats in the house of common is absolutely ridiculous. Even under your definition, the NDP garnered a smaller chunk of the population then the conservatives so you should be blasting Mulcair for speaking on behalf of Canada.
And no you can't combine the votes of the Libs and NDP since they are not a united party but two completely seperate entities with two completely different mandates and pretty much platforms.
The whole logic that the NDP and Libs had a larger population vote is BS political theory until they merge into one party.
but its irrelevant our elections are based on seats, the conservatives have the majority of the seats and therefore their views and policies as passed by the house are in this case and any case the views of Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
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.
|
Mulcair's party had a smaller percentage of the popular vote in the last election so by your theory he has even less of a right to open his big yap and contravene the policies of the elected government during a official foreign visit that's not paid for by the NDP but paid for by the taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
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.
|
But we don't and until we do your theory has no standing, we are represented by seats in the house, the Conservatives have the majority, they pass bills and therefore the conservatives not only govern, but represent Canada as the official government.
Until the system changes that's the way its going to be.
Out of curiosity would you have said the same thing when Chretien had a majority but didn't have the popular vote?