2011 Canadian Election Thread

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fair point, though I think that analysis is also flawed. In the HoC, PEI's 1 MP would hold virtually no power, but Alberta's 37 would hold 10% of the house. So Alberta would have 10% of both houses, while PEI would have 10% of one, and virtually nothing of the other.

Yeah, but even with the severe over-representation they currently enjoy, PEI's 4 MPs barely have any influence in the house as is (really, there's not that much difference between having 4 MPs or 1). I'm sure every Islander would gladly reduce their number of MPs to 1 if it meant they were granted 10% senate voting power (an increase from their current 3.8%).

[Resolute 14]

Perhaps, but PEI will always be an extreme example under any scenario.

[Ark2]

One thing that I would like to point out is that the popular vote in a PR system would not likely be the same as the popular vote in a FPTP system. Parties focus their efforts and campaign differently in both systems, so you can't simply say that the 40% to 60% rule would apply with PR. Heck, in Ontario, during the last week of the election, the Conservatives actually released ads that were designed to draw voters away from the Liberals and send them over to the NDP.

[Slava]

Thought that I would note that that the cabinet was shuffled/announced today. Nothing too earth-shattering there, although I was a little surprised to see Baird go to foreign affairs (though maybe he can yell at the Danes about the arctic!).

After the shuffle Harper appointed three more senators. That hardly qualifies as news I suppose. What does though is that two of them had resigned to run for seats and lost. So much for democracy, will of the people and things like that. I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show.

[transplant99]

Senators are appointed....he appointed them...how is that undemocratic?

More than that IMO....he had to make sure that the CPC kept a majority in the senate as well if he is to ever reform the place like the CPC claim to want to do.

Thats the litmus test for this gvernment...will they actually go through with the reform they have claimed they would for years and years now.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thought that I would note that that the cabinet was shuffled/announced today. Nothing too earth-shattering there, although I was a little surprised to see Baird go to foreign affairs (though maybe he can yell at the Danes about the arctic!).

After the shuffle Harper appointed three more senators. That hardly qualifies as news I suppose. What does though is that two of them had resigned to run for seats and lost. So much for democracy, will of the people and things like that. I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show.

Why? Harper can fill those positions with whoever he wants. That's the rules and he isn't the first PM to fill those seats with people who failed to win a seat in the general election.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Slava

After the shuffle Harper appointed three more senators. That hardly qualifies as news I suppose. What does though is that two of them had resigned to run for seats and lost. So much for democracy, will of the people and things like that. I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show.

What's the deal with Liberals pointing out completely trivial things like this all of a sudden? Like anything the Conservatives have done in the last 5 years of running the country is even remotely close to the level of corruption that reigned free throughout the Chretien years.

The Liberals have been preaching this hidden agenda for so long now that they'll grasp at anything just to try to save some face. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting pretty tired of this crap. Even as a fringe party, they're still running around with a chip on their shoulder like we stole the country away from them or something.

If you guys want to talk about democracy, then earn enough seats in the House so that someone can hear you. That's how democracy works. You get elected by the people, not by some self-assigned "right to govern."

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thought that I would note that that the cabinet was shuffled/announced today. Nothing too earth-shattering there, although I was a little surprised to see Baird go to foreign affairs (though maybe he can yell at the Danes about the arctic!).

After the shuffle Harper appointed three more senators. That hardly qualifies as news I suppose. What does though is that two of them had resigned to run for seats and lost. So much for democracy, will of the people and things like that. I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show.

How is that disregarding democracy? Those guys ran as MP's of two particular ridings, they lost, and now they won't be representing those ridings as MP's. That has no relation to appointed seats in the Senate. Can you at least try to look at things sensibly rather than firing off the anti-Harper rhetoric?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thought that I would note that that the cabinet was shuffled/announced today. Nothing too earth-shattering there, although I was a little surprised to see Baird go to foreign affairs (though maybe he can yell at the Danes about the arctic!).

After the shuffle Harper appointed three more senators. That hardly qualifies as news I suppose. What does though is that two of them had resigned to run for seats and lost. So much for democracy, will of the people and things like that. I can't believe the disregard for democracy they continue to show.

Harper has asked every province to elect senators for him to choose from, and he has comitted to appoint elected senators if they are given. He is the first, and only, Prime Minister to do so. Of course he has followed through on this promise too.

Quebec (and most provinces, maybe even every single one outside of AB?) have refused to do so. And thus, what is Harper supposed to do, just leave the Senate vacant?

I don't get the logic in this particular liberal talking point.

[evman150]

It's hardly undemocratic, but it's certainly a cheesy thing to do.

[Slava]

Wow. I can't even believe that you guys are defending this.

These two run in an election a couple of weeks ago, lose said election and now get appointed positions and you think thats totally fine?

It's bad enough if they were some old cronies, like we're grudgingly accustomed to in Canadian politics, but as guys who just lost it's far worse.

You know, just because you support the CPC it's OK to disagree with things sometimes, right?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

What's the deal with Liberals pointing out completely trivial things like this all of a sudden? Like anything the Conservatives have done in the last 5 years of running the country is even remotely close to the level of corruption that reigned free throughout the Chretien years.

The Liberals have been preaching this hidden agenda for so long now that they'll grasp at anything just to try to save some face. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting pretty tired of this crap. Even as a fringe party, they're still running around with a chip on their shoulder like we stole the country away from them or something.

If you guys want to talk about democracy, then earn enough seats in the House so that someone can hear you. That's how democracy works. You get elected by the people, not by some self-assigned "right to govern."

A) I'm a small "l" liberal, not card carrying.

B) what does my saying this is undemocratic have to do with a hidden agenda

C) I get that the PM appoints senators and have no real issue with that. I do have an issue when the two in question were just defeated in an election though.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Wow. I can't even believe that you guys are defending this.

These two run in an election a couple of weeks ago, lose said election and now get appointed positions and you think thats totally fine?

It's bad enough if they were some old cronies, like we're grudgingly accustomed to in Canadian politics, but as guys who just lost it's far worse.

You know, just because you support the CPC it's OK to disagree with things sometimes, right?

How the heck is it wrong? They lost as MP's. Not as Senators. What aren't you getting about this? It's not like he replaced two sitting MP's with these guys. The more you talk about politics, the more it seems that you really don't understand how our parliamentary system actually works.

[transplant99]

These two run in an election a couple of weeks ago, lose said election and now get appointed positions and you think thats totally fine?

The Senate is littered with people that lost elections at one time or another....and none of them lost an election for the position they now hold.

It's no big deal that APPOINTEES have lost elections...thats the process and has nothing to do with "democracy" as the Senate has never had an iota of democracy attached to it.


Were you not one of the guys defending the coup by Dion and crew less than 2 months after the election while claiming "its part of the Parliamentary process"?

Guess what? So is appointing Senators...regardless of the recent elections as one has nothing to do with the other.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

How the heck is it wrong? They lost as MP's. Not as Senators. What aren't you getting about this? It's not like he replaced two sitting MP's with these guys. The more you talk about politics, the more it seems that you really don't understand how our parliamentary system actually works.

I understand fully, but thanks. Again the point here isn't that they were appointed....I understand that's how it works and great, the PM can appoint who he wants.

You don't see any issue with the fact that they were defeated three weeks ago and today are appointed as senators? Take off the partisan blinders and tell me that

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The Senate is littered with people that lost elections at one time or another....and none of them lost an election for the position they now hold.

It's no big deal that APPOINTEES have lost elections...thats the process and has nothing to do with "democracy" as the Senate has never had an iota of democracy attached to it.


Were you not one of the guys defending the coup by Dion and crew less than 2 months after the election while claiming "its part of the Parliamentary process"?

Guess what? So is appointing Senators...regardless of the recent elections as one has nothing to do with the other.

There is an enormous difference between a majority of elected representatives taking over the house of commons and the appointment of someone who just lot an election to the senate. Surely you can see that?

[Calgaryborn]

I and the majority of Canadians didn't vote against these 2 MP candidates. No Canadians voted against these fellows serving in the Senate. I see no problem.

Perhaps those of you who voted NDP should encourage them to work with the government on Senate reform. Right now the NDP position is to abolish the Senate. That is not going to happen. So lets see some proposals to make the Senate more effective.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

You don't see any issue with the fact that they were defeated three weeks ago and today are appointed as senators? Take off the partisan blinders and tell me that

Yes, I don't see any problem with it. This has nothing to do with partisanship. Past non-CPC governments have done it before and I don't have an issue with that either. I don't like the idea of an appointed senate and would love to see it reformed, but until that happens, I see nothing wrong with these appointments. They ran for one position of government and lost. They don't get to sit in the House of Commons as MP's. The people's will was not circumvented. Harper believes that these two are still useful and so they are given positions elsewhere in government.

I'm being totally honest when I say this, but I don't see what your issue is. No offense, but it really does sound like you don't understand the parliamentary process. You realize that a seat in the Senate is not the same as being an MP in the House of Commons, right? Losing an election where you run as an MP has no relation to one's eligibility to be appointed to the Senate.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

There is an enormous difference between a majority of elected representatives taking over the house of commons and the appointment of someone who just lot an election to the senate. Surely you can see that?

But they weren't running in that election as Senators, they were running as MPs. Senators are appointed positions, and therefore their appointment is inherently undemocratic.

If they ran as Senators, lost, and then Harper appointed then you might on to something, but this is hardly a big deal.

Just because you aren't qualified to do one job, doesn't mean you aren't qualified to do another. In fact, maybe these guys will be kick ass Senators and would have made terrible MPs. They are different jobs after all.

[Slava]

Forget it. I just hope that Harper appoints Ignatieff to the senate so that I can complain about it being undemocratic and you guys have to defend it.