Coalition Deal To Topple Minority Tory Govt- [Update Parliament Prorogued until Jan]

[redforever]

I think what is coming out of this whole escapade, fiasco, whatever you wish to call it, is this.

Most Canadians, under any circumstances, do not want the Bloc to have any Executive powers in the country of Canada.

And the coalition can call themselves NDP/Liberal coalition all they want, fact of the matter is that coalitiion does not exist without the Bloc backing them. If this were a coalition of strictly NDP and Liberals, I do not believe there would be this outcry from the citizens of this country.

Now my take on the matter is some of this could be avoided if Canadian voters would start to vote more strategically. Well first of all, I should say, if they would just plain vote!!!

By voting strategically I mean, not just for the political flavor of the day or for a special interest group.

And at this point in time, Canada presents itself with two major mainstream parties, who are both a bit right of center and one that is definitely left of center. I am not inlcuding the Bloc in this equation because they only run candidates in the province of Quebec and I myself do not look at them as a National Party.

What do I mean by voting strategically? For instance, take the Green party, which has grown somewhat in its support. Now most of us are concerned about the environment, some of course much more than others.

Each of the mainstream parties in Canada has a platform regarding the environment. So you as a voter have a choice to make. Do you wish to vote for a party that enshrines all of your environmental concerns but at the end of the day ends up end up with 0 MP's in Ottawa? Or do you want to go through the other parties platforms and find one that has environmental initiatives close enough to yours that you could live with.

Remember that rarely in life will you get everything you ask for and that for sure is the case in politics. So as a strategic voter, you are going to have to do some compromising or end up with the current situation in Ottawa or one that will escalate the more fractured we become.

Right now, the citizens of Canada are saying, we don't want this. But those same citizens are going to have to find a way to vote to prevent it in the future.

[Scrambler]

If this country wastes money on yet another election I'm going to be quite angry. What do they think turnout will be this time around? Voter apathy will be at ultimate low I think, and we'll just end up with yet another minority. Great waste of money that is very tight these days.

Not a Harper fan, but boy do Dion, Layton and Duceppe make him look like the good alternative.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by redforever

I think what is coming out of this whole escapade, fiasco, whatever you wish to call it, is this.

Most Canadians, under any circumstances, do not want the Bloc to have any Executive powers in the country of Canada.

And the coalition can call themselves NDP/Liberal coalition all they want, fact of the matter is that coalitiion does not exist without the Bloc backing them. If this were a coalition of strictly NDP and Liberals, I do not believe there would be this outcry from the citizens of this country.

Now my take on the matter is some of this could be avoided if Canadian voters would start to vote more strategically. Well first of all, I should say, if they would just plain vote!!!

By voting strategically I mean, not just for the political flavor of the day or for a special interest group.

And at this point in time, Canada presents itself with two major mainstream parties, who are both a bit right of center and one that is definitely left of center. I am not inlcuding the Bloc in this equation because they only run candidates in the province of Quebec and I myself do not look at them as a National Party.

What do I mean by voting strategically? For instance, take the Green party, which has grown somewhat in its support. Now most of us are concerned about the environment, some of course much more than others.

Each of the mainstream parties in Canada has a platform regarding the environment. So you as a voter have a choice to make. Do you wish to vote for a party that enshrines all of your environmental concerns but at the end of the day ends up end up with 0 MP's in Ottawa? Or do you want to go through the other parties platforms and find one that has environmental initiatives close enough to yours that you could live with.

Remember that rarely in life will you get everything you ask for and that for sure is the case in politics. So as a strategic voter, you are going to have to do some compromising or end up with the current situation in Ottawa or one that will escalate the more fractured we become.

Right now, the citizens of Canada are saying, we don't want this. But those same citizens are going to have to find a way to vote to prevent it in the future.

I disagree with your statement that we have two mainstream parties that are a bit right of center. I think the Liberals are a bit left of center and moving further from the center every day.... and this situation will be further exacerbated (sp?) if Dion remains the leader very much longer or if Bob Rae becomes their new leader.

For me the perfect situation would be to have all party members vote the way they wish to, on all votes.... assuming that the way they wish to reflects the views of the constituency. I think the position of party whip should be abolished. Party members should not be forced to vote the party line unless they are voting on something that was stated as a party position during the election campaign.

As for strategic voters.... I have no respect for them. Vote for someone or something you believe in... not the other way around.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Scrambler

If this country wastes money on yet another election I'm going to be quite angry. What do they think turnout will be this time around? Voter apathy will be at ultimate low I think, and we'll just end up with yet another minority. Great waste of money that is very tight these days.

Not a Harper fan, but boy do Dion, Layton and Duceppe make him look like the good alternative.

Actually, I'm pretty confident that it would be close to a record turnout and the PCs would get an overwhelming majority.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Scrambler

If this country wastes money on yet another election I'm going to be quite angry. What do they think turnout will be this time around? Voter apathy will be at ultimate low I think, and we'll just end up with yet another minority. Great waste of money that is very tight these days.

Not a Harper fan, but boy do Dion, Layton and Duceppe make him look like the good alternative.

I wonder if this whole incident doesn't increase participation in the next election.

Then again, I almost didn't vote in the last because I hated the options and my riding is a lead pipe lock anyways. But I did vote.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I disagree with your statement that we have two mainstream parties that are a bit right of center. I think the Liberals are a bit left of center and moving further from the center every day.... and this situation will be further exacerbated (sp?) if Dion remains the leader very much longer or if Bob Rae becomes their new leader.

For me the perfect situation would be to have all party members vote the way they wish to, on all votes.... assuming that the way they wish to reflects the views of the constituency. I think the position of party whip should be abolished. Party members should not be forced to vote the party line unless they are voting on something that was stated as a party position during the election campaign.

As for strategic voters.... I have no respect for them. Vote for someone or something you believe in... not the other way around.

That is exactly what I said, but I also cautioned you might not and probably will not get everything you believe in.

So look for the party that will give you most of the things you believe in and care about. I am not espousing voting for a party that you hate and do not believe in just to prevent another candidate from winning in that riding.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Actually, I'm pretty confident that it would be close to a record turnout and the PCs would get an overwhelming majority.

Unless the BQ lose a bunch of seats, no one will be getting an overwhelming majority any time soon. I still think we are going to get minority governments for a long time. At best it will be a razor thin majority.

[Scrambler]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I wonder if this whole incident doesn't increase participation in the next election.

Then again, I almost didn't vote in the last because I hated the options and my riding is a lead pipe lock anyways. But I did vote.

I thought of that too, but even if there is more participation this time around, I still only foresee a minority.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Unless the BQ lose a bunch of seats, no one will be getting an overwhelming majority any time soon. I still think we are going to get minority governments for a long time. At best it will be a razor thin majority.

I think, the way the polls are right now, if the election was held tomorrow.... it would be an overwhelming Conservative majority.

Unfortunately, elections can not be held immediately. I believe you have to give 39 days (I think) between the time the writ is dropped and the day of the polls. That my friend, is the problem.... as the Conservatives tend to suffer from "Foot in mouth disease" once the electioneering starts.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Rerun

As for strategic voters.... I have no respect for them. Vote for someone or something you believe in... not the other way around.

Agreed. Strategic voting, as redforever put it, is worse than not voting in my opinion. Seems cowardly.

Vote for whom you want to win, not to block another candidate or to get a "2nd worst option" into office. Absurd.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by Snipes

Why is it a bad thing for a political party to have to earn its money through fundraising efforts instead of an automatic dole out from tax payers? How, if all parties have to do the same thing is this unfair?

These are the questions I would like to see/hear answered...more than anything else.

[metallicat]

I agree...I really don't see why my tax dollars should be supporting parties that I personally don't support. Maybe it this was like how they do it with the school systems, where you have to declare support...but that wouldn't work either. Just scrap it alltogether. I hope the CPC do just that if they get their majority.

[Rerun]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Harper introduced a budget in January that included tons of economic stimulus (which, the current lack of, is what the coalition says they are all upset about) and the promise to eliminate the $1.95 public tax support to political parties?

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

These are the questions I would like to see/hear answered...more than anything else.

As a partial answer: public funding for political parties assures a baseline ability for all parties to participate in the democratic process. It's particularly crucial for the smallest parties which have less resources with which to fundraise, and ultimately allows them to participate and to contribute to our democracy.

Additionally, it prevents the wealthy from having a disproportionate say in the democratic process. Assuming that every voter votes with his or her own best interests in mind, one can assume that wealthy voters would vote for and contribute to parties which have policies favouring the wealthy. To borrow a figure from the US, 95% of the wealth lies in the hands of 5% of the population, so that 5% will be able to contribute more and exert a disproportionate influence on the democratic process for their own benefit. Public funding provides at least some safeguard against that, ensuring parties with support from lower income earners are able to make their voices heard, even if they can't afford to shout quite as loudly.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

As a partial answer: public funding for political parties assures a baseline ability for all parties to participate in the democratic process. It's particularly crucial for the smallest parties which have less resources with which to fundraise, and ultimately allows them to participate and to contribute to our democracy.

Additionally, it prevents the wealthy from having a disproportionate say in the democratic process. Assuming that every voter votes with his or her own best interests in mind, one can assume that wealthy voters would vote for and contribute to parties which have policies favouring the wealthy. To borrow a figure from the US, 95% of the wealth lies in the hands of 5% of the population, so that 5% will be able to contribute more and exert a disproportionate influence on the democratic process for their own benefit. Public funding provides at least some safeguard against that, ensuring parties with support from lower income earners are able to make their voices heard, even if they can't afford to shout quite as loudly.

You are wrong...

As per Elections Canada Website :

As of January 1, 2007, new rules for political contributions under the Canada Elections Act come into force:

• You can make a political donation to registered political entities only if you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada.
• You can give no more than $1,100* in each calendar year to each registered political party.
• You can give no more than $1,100* in total in any calendar year to the various entities of each registered political party (registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates).
• You can give no more than $1,100* to each independent candidate for a particular election.
• You can give no more than $1,100* in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.
• You can no longer make a cash contribution of more than $20 to registered political entities.
• You cannot make a political contribution with money, property or services that were given to you for that purpose.
• Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution.
• If you are running as a nomination contestant or a candidate, you can make an additional contribution up to $1,000 in total per election from your own funds to your own campaign. You can divide this amount between your nomination and candidate campaigns as you wish.
• If you are running as a party leadership contestant, you can make an additional contribution of up to $1,000 in total per contest from your own funds to your own campaign.

*The Act provides for maximum contribution limits of $1,000, subject to an inflation adjustment on April 1 of each year. On January 1, 2007, these limits are $1,100. For more information on contribution limits, go to www.elections.ca

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?...textonly=false

Frankly, I don't think $1,100 buys you much influence.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I agree...I really don't see why my tax dollars should be supporting parties that I personally don't support. Maybe it this was like how they do it with the school systems, where you have to declare support...but that wouldn't work either. Just scrap it alltogether. I hope the CPC do just that if they get their majority.

They always have been and they still would have been under the Conservatives' new plan because political donations are tax deductible. Basically, if a person in an upper tax bracket donates some money to a political party, the taxpayer is paying for about 40%-50% of that donation through reduced collection of taxes. Even with lower income people, the taxpayer is still paying at least 25% of the contribution. If some unions (through its members) donates $3 million to the NDP, the taxpayer is probably paying about 30%-40% of that.

What the Conservatives were seeking to do is maintain pubic subsidization of campaign finance through the means that benefit them the most. They get more money from donations than other parties, so that form of subsidy via tax deductions would continue. However, the form of subsidy that the other parties benefited from more would be removed under the guise of saving a little money for tax payers.

Virtually every free democracy in the world has some form of public financing of political campaigns. There are a few reasons for this. The main idea is to make politicians less beholden to private interests. Also, by tying it to the number of votes they get, people do, in a sense, determine where their share of the tax dollars are going.

Another important reason is that a lot of a politicians' and their staff's time can be spent raising money when he/she could otherwise be working and/or interacting with constituents. It's estimated that some politicians in the United States use over 50% of their and their staffers' time soliciting various forms of financing. That time can better be spent doing more productive things.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Agreed. Strategic voting, as redforever put it, is worse than not voting in my opinion. Seems cowardly.

Vote for whom you want to win, not to block another candidate or to get a "2nd worst option" into office. Absurd.

Cowardly? Hmm... living in Calgary really offers you no better choice. Voting for a candidate that at least has a chance to beat the incumbent is better than voting for a candidate that simply does not. You can call it what you want, but the reality is that it happens because sometimes a minority voice is simply not heard otherwise.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

As a partial answer: public funding for political parties assures a baseline ability for all parties to participate in the democratic process. It's particularly crucial for the smallest parties which have less resources with which to fundraise, and ultimately allows them to participate and to contribute to our democracy.

If this was true, why is there a "minimum percentage of votes" needed to get this funding?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Frankly, I don't think $1,100 buys you much influence.

I think it buys a lot of influence when you multiply it by the number of people who can afford to give that much and then consider that some parties attract a lot more of those kinds of people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

These are the questions I would like to see/hear answered...more than anything else.

Fair enough. It's sort of a philosophical question with good arguments for and against I'm sure.

The best answer right now is "WHO CARES?".

30 million bucks is nothing. It's a dollar for everyone. It's a hundred yards of some freeway in Toronto. It changes nothing. It's an insignificant amount of money that should not be bringing the whole goddamn works to a grinding halt as the bad news piles higher and higher.

Stupid-ass Harper couldn't have picked a worse time to pull this petty stunt. A couple years ago would have been the time to get into it. Even a year ago. If he didn't see this reaction coming, he should have. Whether or not they deserve the money, the Liberals and the NDP were not going to watch themselves be essentially bankrupted. They just weren't. We all know it.

It's a bad move and he should have seen it coming. The other clowns should have backed off when he did.

They all look terrible now. Every last one of them.