Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
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.
|
Well, since our system doesn't give anyone the legitimacy of a population majority, perhaps the solution is that Harper can speak for his 40%, Mulcair can speak for his 31%, and Rae gets to speak for his 19%. If we want someone to speak for all of us, then we need a system that makes sure that somone gets at least 50%.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
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.
|
I'm not doing that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Out of curiosity would you have said the same thing when Chretien had a majority but didn't have the popular vote?
|
Yes, but with the caveat that a non-majority plurality that includes the median voter has a far greater legitimacy in representing the country as a whole than a non-majority plurality that excludes the median voter.
The median voter is important because a coalition under a proportional system must include him to reach a majority. Thus Chretien might not have been PM, but the Liberals would have been a necessary part of any logical coalition government. We cannot say the same of Harper and the Conservatives.