Mulcair expresses misgivings about Keystone XL pipeline during U.S. visit

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a non two party system where the government holds the majority of the seats in the Commons the current government absolutely does have the authority to speak on behalf of the government.

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.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I hate this line of reasoning. He is the individual with the most support. There is no one in power who has more support than him so there is no one more qualified to represent our country to the world.

Muclair only got 30 percent of the vote. And if you want to dig into it, he only received 43% of the vote in the leadership race. By your logic, he isn't even qualified to speak on behalf of the NDP. He should stand up there with Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen anytime the NDP wants to say anything and they should all be allowed to shout their opinions.

The fact is that Canada is a multiparty country with a first past the post election system. There may be better systems, but we have to work with what we have. To help with understanding the system, consider the way the system works without any party affiliation. Every riding elects their chosen MP and sends them to Ottawa. On the first day all 308 of them have a second election to pick a leader. Stephen Harper received 166 votes while Jack Layton took 103, Ignatieff got 34, Duceppe got 4 and May voted for herself. The result is that Stephen Harper has the support of 54% of the House making him the leader of the country with a majority.

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.

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

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.

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?

[SebC]

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%.

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.

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.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

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%.

I'm not doing that.

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.

Politics isn't just a linear line where each party takes a spot. Maybe the conservatives are in the center and the majority of people who don't vote did so because they are too far right for Harper?

You are honestly saying that the 40 percent of people who voted Chretien into power were more legitimate than the 40 percent of people who voted for Harper. Can you be more elitist?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Politics isn't just a linear line where each party takes a spot. Maybe the conservatives are in the center and the majority of people who don't vote did so because they are too far right for Harper?

That's not the case and you know it.

You are honestly saying that the 40 percent of people who voted Chretien into power were more legitimate than the 40 percent of people who voted for Harper. Can you be more elitist?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the legitimacy of mandates, not the legitimacy of people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

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%.

Government doesn't work that way. Your never going to get a system where it works that way. Even if you had a one person one vote scenario, I don't think that there has been a government based on a majority of voters in a pure population vote with the exception of the Soviet elections in the 70's and the current North Korean elections.

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.

i would completely disagree with that, first off its a pretty elitist statement. Second of all you could almost argue that the Conservatives represent the median of voters since they out of all the parties have the most seats spread out through the entire geography of the country, the Liberals don't and the NDP don't. When Chretien won his majority you could then say in your logic that he didn't have the right to speak for this country because he had next to no seats in a lot of geographic areas in this country so he didn't represent for example Western Canada.

Plus the NDP don't really represent the median as their policies really represent far left ideology, the Liberals had also moved significantly left while like it or not, the conservatives were the most centrist party in the election, so you could argue that this Conservative government does speak for Canada based on geographic and voter medians. However since it doesn't work that way, its irrelevant and until the system changes its irrelevant, the Conservatives have a majority government and therefore their policies are the policies of this country until such time as they aren't.



.

[burn_this_city]

Good grief, people are still arguing the 40% baloney? It was right as rain when it wasn't the Cons winning by those margins.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

like it or not, the conservatives were the most centrist party in the election

If they were centrist, why didn't the centre vote for them?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Daradon

1. Only recently have leaders started doing this, and it's a bad trend. While I agree that you do see it from other countries ESPECIALLY the US (and it's not the first time here either I don't think), it is fairly new and it reeks of poor politics.

2. Do you really want to take from the US political playbook?

Give me a logical reason why it's wrong. Do you think other countries are naive enough to believe that our opposition parties are 100% behind the ruling party? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of democracy?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

If they were centrist, why didn't the centre vote for them?

How do you figure that, maybe the centrists voted for them, the NDP got the strategic protest vote and the undecided and unionist left vote, and the Liberals got the die hard I won't vote for anyone but the Liberal vote and the dribbles from the scared of the NDP vote.

When you consider that the Conservatives biggest gains I believe were picked up in Ontario and especially the urban Ontario ridings that usually voted Liberal you have a fairly compelling argument that the Cons gathered a large portion of the centrist vote.\

A lot of the NDP gains in Quebec were gained at the expense of the Liberal's in the form of a we're sick of your party vote and the Bloc.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How do you figure that

Pretty simple: 40% voted right of Liberal (Conservative), 40% voted left of Liberal (NDP, Green, BQ). Liberals might have only 19%, but that 19% includes the "bullseye" of the centre and is quite well centred on the bullseye.

[Skootenbeeten]

I don't like Mulcair but keystone is not good for Canada, shipping out more raw bitumen is stupid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Pretty simple: 40% voted right of Liberal (Conservative), 40% voted left of Liberal (NDP, Green, BQ). Liberals might have only 19%, but that 19% includes the "bullseye" of the centre and is quite well centred on the bullseye.

I buy your logic since Liberal policy platforms in the last election under Dion were pretty left of center to the point where the NDP were accusing the Libs of stealing parts of their platform.

The Conservatives can be classed as center right in their policies especially since the boogy boogy hidden agenda that the Liberal's were warning us about really didn't materialize.

The center left liberal party died in the last election, the 19% probably represented more die hard I will only vote for Liberal red liberals then anything else.

[longsuffering]

Thread title should read:

Right-wingers express misgivings about Free Speech

[GP_Matt]

I don't think it has anything to do with political views or free speech.

He is free to say whatever he wants, but I am free to be disappointed when he does.

As for political views, I don't think any politician should leave the country and disparage us to foreign leaders and press. We are a small country and we need to present a united front.

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I don't like Mulcair but keystone is not good for Canada, shipping out more raw bitumen is stupid.

What do you propose we do with it?

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thread title should read:

Right-wingers express misgivings about Free Speech

Free Speech? This isn't about free speech. How about some teamwork for once?

I really don't understand our take on politics these days. Can't they work together to get what they both want for the Country? Some give and some take here and there, you know some actual teamwork to make this a better country?

Instead it's attack after attack, as soon as a term starts, it's the goal of the opposition party to oust the other party. Nevermind getting some work done for our country.

This applies to all of our parties right now, Cons, Libs, NDP, etc.

Free speech? Yeah, free speech back in our country, but if you're going to represent Canada, represent a United front. Not this crap.

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thread title should read:

Right-wingers express misgivings about Free Speech

Only an idiot would think this is about free speech.

He is down there on the taxpayers dime which in turn should mean that he should have the taxpayers best interest in mind. His only interest here is self serving and not for the greater good of the Canadian taxpayer.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thread title should read:

Right-wingers express misgivings about Free Speech

Yeah, I'm a massive 'right-winger'.

Get yer head out of your poop chute.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Only an idiot would think this is about free speech.

He is down there on the taxpayers dime which in turn should mean that he should have the taxpayers best interest in mind. His only interest here is self serving and not for the greater good of the Canadian taxpayer.

He probably does think he's serving the greater good of the Canadian taxpayer.