2011 Canadian Election Thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Democracy in its current form may not be perfect, but an elected Senate is far superior to the patronage filled one that exists today. Also, with an elected Senate, voters could, for example, give the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons, but the Liberals one in the Senate to check power.

I'm just saying, why even bother having a senate at all if it can't do what it is supposed to? We have a GG that isn't elected. We have a queen that isn't elected. Having a senate that is unelected isn't any worse than that. Abolishing it outright would be cheaper, more democratic and less of a poison pill than giving us redundant (and neutered) elected body.

The real problem is that our parliamentary system is not a 100% pure democracy to begin with. For example, if it was, you'd see minority groups like First Nations in urban areas getting represented - but that never happens. The people who created the system knew that it had flaws and the senate is designed to address those and fit within the system we have. Until we have more representative system, we might as well keep the senate the way it is as the appointments in senate are meant to give representation to people the political system leaves behind.

I think it would be perfect to have all our officials elected (including judges for that matter), but unless you change the whole structure of the government, an elected senate would have the same problems that an elected parliament has (with no check or balance to mitigate it).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think Hitler made the same argument once...

Link please.

[Resolute 14]

The Senate does what it is supposed to. But it doesn't do what we need it to. It needs reformation, not abolition. Especially if anyone wants our government ever representing more than just Ontario and Quebec.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Link please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H...yer_detailpage

My German's a little rusty though, this may be a recipe for corn bread.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Link please.

Seriously?

How do you think Hitler got his power?

He abolished elected positions after the death of Hindenburg, and assumed totalitarian control.

At any rate, this has nothing to do with the election now.

A group of new polls releasd over the last 2 days shows that the NDP really have some momentum, but that is unlikely to translate into a lot of seat gain. In fact it looks like the house could look exactly the same when all is said and done.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Seriously?

How do you think Hitler got his power?

By being elected... democratically. His wide appeal is what allowed him to take absolute power but he used the democratic institutions of Germany to get there. Being elected into government democratically is what allowed him to remove the protection of minorities.

As far as I know, Hitler never removed a politcal body whose goal was to preserve minority interests (which is something that the appointed senate is designed to do and an elected senate would lose).

He abolished elected positions after the death of Hindenburg, and assumed totalitarian control.

If only there was some type of check or balance to stop that from happening... like I don't know... an appointed senate? Because let's face it, Hitler was so popular that the same people who elected him, would have also elected a senate with the same goals.

I'm never recommended abolishing elections for anything. Wow, I can't believe I am more conservative on an issue than most people on CP. That is a first.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H...yer_detailpage

My German's a little rusty though, this may be a recipe for corn bread.

A yes... I distinctly hear the part where Hitler recommends preserving an institution that is partly designed to ensure minority interests in the political process.

[Slava]

I don't know that anyone here is going to care, but this is a serious concern in my eyes: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/26...LOCK_QuickRead

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The real problem is that our parliamentary system is not a 100% pure democracy to begin with. For example, if it was, you'd see minority groups like First Nations in urban areas getting represented - but that never happens.

This isn't true at all, First Nations in urban areas are represented exactly the same as everyone else.

What you are saying is that you believe First Nations should recieve special or extra representation in government, which is an entirely different point.

The people who created the system knew that it had flaws and the senate is designed to address those and fit within the system we have. Until we have more representative system, we might as well keep the senate the way it is as the appointments in senate are meant to give representation to people the political system leaves behind.

This may have been the fluff that was originally proposed, but in reality the Senate is nothing more than a house to reward party faithful with golden plated pensions and political patronage positions where they don't have to answer to anyone.

Further, your assertion that anyone is 'left behind' once again is really saying that you think certain people's opinions are more important than others. Democracy should make us all equals, not put certain groups onto pedastals.

[Shazam]

Well of course we're not a pure democracy. If we were everyone would say yay or nay to every vote and some poor schmuck would have to count the hands.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know that anyone here is going to care, but this is a serious concern in my eyes: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/26...LOCK_QuickRead

About as serious as someone with clear Liberal sympathies leaking an early, and therefore potentially inaccurate, draft of Fraser's G20 report, eh?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

About as serious as someone with clear Liberal sympathies leaking an early, and therefore potentially inaccurate, draft of Fraser's G20 report, eh?

You don't think that the CPC pushing a fake news story complete with an altered photo is concerning at all?

The AG report might be potentially inaccurate, but there is absolutely no question here. Its a pure lie.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

This isn't true at all, First Nations in urban areas are represented exactly the same as everyone else.

What you are saying is that you believe First Nations should recieve special or extra representation in government, which is an entirely different point.

I don't presume to know the voting patterns of First Nations in urban areas, but there are millions of Canadians whose votes "don't count". For starters, anyone who votes Green. Second, anyone who votes for a candidate who didn't win. Third, anyone who votes for a candidate who does win wastes a portion of their vote corresponding to the margin by which that candidate won. There are a lot of people who are unrepresented in first past the post.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Slava

You don't think that the CPC pushing a fake news story complete with an altered photo is concerning at all?

The AG report might be potentially inaccurate, but there is absolutely no question here. Its a pure lie.

To be fair, there's no indication (in the linked story) that the actual photo was altered in any way.

The piece describes how the lower quality image is "...a compelling electronic image of a man very closely resembling Michael Ignatieff", while the higher resolution image "...revealed without a doubt that the man in question could not be the Liberal leader."

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Slava

You don't think that the CPC pushing a fake news story complete with an altered photo is concerning at all?

The AG report might be potentially inaccurate, but there is absolutely no question here. Its a pure lie.

Please wake up, its called negative campaigning. Who's to say that the Sun news report your basing it on is not a negative campaign stunt? This stuff always comes out years(or even months later).

There is all sorts of juicy stuff done during campaigns, there are all candidate meetings or debates where candidates are sent to the wrong address, others where the meeting location is locked up. Others where mics and sound systems sabotaged. Its a game.

Ultimately you have to put all those games aside and decide what is best for you and your family when you are in the voting booth. Trying to find a politician who has the high moral ground is folly.

[Spinach]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

They scare me, he can't actually win can he?

Watch out, dem der socialists and their commie friends are coming ta getcha!

[Slava]

I know...I'm such an idiot for believing this...oh wait, the CPC acknowledges this!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/insi...-with-qmi.html

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't presume to know the voting patterns of First Nations in urban areas, but there are millions of Canadians whose votes "don't count". For starters, anyone who votes Green. Second, anyone who votes for a candidate who didn't win. Third, anyone who votes for a candidate who does win wastes a portion of their vote corresponding to the margin by which that candidate won. There are a lot of people who are unrepresented in first past the post.

Didn't you learn in Social Studies that the elected gov't is supposed to represent all people, including people that didn't vote for them?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

About as serious as someone with clear Liberal sympathies leaking an early, and therefore potentially inaccurate, draft of Fraser's G20 report, eh?

Or almost as serious as the groundbreaking news that Harper didn't swallow his communion wafer!!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't presume to know the voting patterns of First Nations in urban areas, but there are millions of Canadians whose votes "don't count". For starters, anyone who votes Green. Second, anyone who votes for a candidate who didn't win. Third, anyone who votes for a candidate who does win wastes a portion of their vote corresponding to the margin by which that candidate won. There are a lot of people who are unrepresented in first past the post.

Obviously their votes were counted, otherwise we wouldn't know who won.

Trying to paint this as being unprepresented is patently false.

In our democracy, everyone is represented by their vote. One person, one vote.

The mechanics of forming government is open to millions of hairsplitting arguments but pretending their votes are not counted is silly.