2 days to vote in election, Tories propose

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't follow this line of thinking; but the fact is that many people do. For example in Alberta it is a foregone conclusion that one party is going to win the seat. If you were the supporter of another party with no chance of winning it lessens the likelihood of actually turning out to vote. This is specifically true if the weather is bad, or you simply have a lot to do that day and run out of time.

For the record, I vote every time, in every election. Does your vote really mean anything if you vote for the losing candidate though?

It depends I guess on how you define democracy and making a difference. I believe it does. How many years did we have Manning in Alberta and Lougheed was in opposition only?

Change does not usually come overnight. Sometimes it wont come at all if you espouse some principle that most will disagree with. But one thing is for certain, if all you do is sit on your duff and complain and make excuses, then it is a certainty that things will not change.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by redforever

It depends I guess on how you define democracy and making a difference. I believe it does. How many years did we have Manning in Alberta and Lougheed was in opposition only?

Change does not usually come overnight. Sometimes it wont come at all if you espouse some principle that most will disagree with. But one thing is for certain, if all you do is sit on your duff and complain and make excuses, then it is a certainty that things will not change.

I guess I'm showing my political stripes here, but I've never voted for a winner yet; which is a bit disconcerting. If we had a PR system at least those votes would've garnered some hope of representation rather than just having those opinions cast aside for the "clear winner" with less than 50% of the vote in most cases. <sigh>One day Canada will wake-up and push for true democracy where every vote counts.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess I'm showing my political stripes here, but I've never voted for a winner yet; which is a bit disconcerting. If we had a PR system at least those votes would've garnered some hope of representation rather than just having those opinions cast aside for the "clear winner" with less than 50% of the vote in most cases. <sigh>One day Canada will wake-up and push for true democracy where every vote counts.

OK, I dont know your political stripe, I would assume not Grit or Tory. BUT, has your party made a difference in opposition? Some of the best bills and some of the best changes have come from the opposition parties, not the ruling parties.

Voting for a party that is not a winner does not mean your party will not make a difference.

I do agree with you however, there are better potitical systems out there for electing who will run our country. Now, we have to care enough to try and make that happen.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by iggypop

There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass. This is a perfect time for the conservatives to finally gain a majority government, they just need to find some way to get an election. He can't just ask the GG to dissolve government, that wouldnt look good on his part. But if he could make it look as though the other parties sent us to the polls he'd be golden. If they could lose on this bill and go into an election saying "the other parties didnt want canadians to have more chance to vote", it would be a perfect platform.

Let me get this straight. Harper is proposing legislation he doesn't want to pass (There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass)? Will he be disappointed if it does pass? If you are suggesting this just to create an election issue, I'd personally have much more important issues than an extra day to vote, and even then I'm sure the Liberals could spin the issue to "we didn't believe the day of worship for many Canadians was an appropriate day to hold an election". That is just poor logic.

And why would he want an election right now when the most recent poll shows Liberals and PC within a few points of each other?

As it stands, we will be in a similar situation after an election as we are now except there would have been a couple months of campaigning.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Slava

One day Canada will wake-up and push for true democracy where every vote counts.

Canada will break up before it wakes up! Democracy in general is broken in the 21st Century, and even moreso in Canada where we have democratic inequality enshrined in our constitution.

It IS possible that the majority of Canadians would support major reforms right now...I don't have the latest polling data, but it's possible. However, the combination of political pressures and the inflexible constitutional amending formula makes a major reform such as PR a near impossibility. Think of it...right now, the four least populous provinces have disproportionately high representation:

PEI+NB+NS+NL together have approximately 7.3% of the population, but 10.4% of the representation in the commons (and 28.6% of the senate). These four provinces, acting together, could veto any significant changes to our system of representitive democracy...and given their over-representation as it stands now, why wouldn't they?

No politician would back an electoral reform process that was doomed to failure.

[FireFly]

I say give it a whirl and see what happens. If they find it just costs more money and doesn't increase turnout, then they'll stop doing it.

[Slava]

Yeah, I know its a pipe-dream of mine...but I still want to make it happen someday.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

Because a few years ago the Liberals passed a law to prevent that from ever happening and the Supreme Court backed them up on it.

I happen to think we should be seeing the results as they come in and it should influence the vote.

I disagree.
Why should we have more information while voting than those in the east?
The election was run in the east without any knowledge of how the voting was going, and that's the way it should be in the west. No Candidate/Party/Voter should get any sort of advantage over any other.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Canada will break up before it wakes up! Democracy in general is broken in the 21st Century, and even moreso in Canada where we have democratic inequality enshrined in our constitution.

It IS possible that the majority of Canadians would support major reforms right now...I don't have the latest polling data, but it's possible. However, the combination of political pressures and the inflexible constitutional amending formula makes a major reform such as PR a near impossibility. Think of it...right now, the four least populous provinces have disproportionately high representation:

PEI+NB+NS+NL together have approximately 7.3% of the population, but 10.4% of the representation in the commons (and 28.6% of the senate). These four provinces, acting together, could veto any significant changes to our system of representitive democracy...and given their over-representation as it stands now, why wouldn't they?

No politician would back an electoral reform process that was doomed to failure.

It's the reason there needs to be a triple E senate first. That way the smaller provinces don't lose their effectiveness in Parliament.

However, BC actually had a referendum a number of years ago on electoral reform that would have given them a more proportional representation system... and the public voted it down. It's not just the government that doesn't want it apparently, although I believe part of the problem was educating the voters on what the changes would mean.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

It's the reason there needs to be a triple E senate first. That way the smaller provinces don't lose their effectiveness in Parliament.

However, BC actually had a referendum a number of years ago on electoral reform that would have given them a more proportional representation system... and the public voted it down. It's not just the government that doesn't want it apparently, although I believe part of the problem was educating the voters on what the changes would mean.

That is the biggest gimmick ever. The whole point of the senate is that its not another elected house. It is not intended to be reflective of the population and not intended to provide more representation. It was designed to review items and try to make sure that they are effective. The triple E senate won't help matters at all; it will enforce regional disparity and regional differences. Legislation that benefits one region can get held up forever based on political ambitions. The public also voted down the Triple E senate...as part of the Charlottetown package.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

...although I believe part of the problem was educating the voters on what the changes would mean.

IIRC, the majority of voters in BC supported electoral reform, but that majority fell slightly short of the 60% super-majority that the government deemed acceptable to actually implement the changes.

In reality, I think voter education is one of the big ways in which democracy in general is broken. We have so-called representative democracy, but the representatives do very little other than follow the tides of public opinion polls. How much thought do you think people put into answering an opinion poll? I don't imagine it's very much (although I have to think carefully to ensure that I'm lying to the pollster). Suddenly, in an age where you can hardly go a day without hearing a poll result, I think voters have started to turn off their brains on election day, simply considering the election to be another opinion poll.

Opinion polls are the equivalent of asking "which girl do you think is the hottest?" The answer can change depending on clothing, hair, and make-up. Elections are the equivalent of asking "which girl would you marry?" That takes a little more thought....

...for some people, although I think that number is decreasing.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Canada will break up before it wakes up! Democracy in general is broken in the 21st Century, and even moreso in Canada where we have democratic inequality enshrined in our constitution.

It IS possible that the majority of Canadians would support major reforms right now...I don't have the latest polling data, but it's possible. .

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

IIRC, the majority of voters in BC supported electoral reform, but that majority fell slightly short of the 60% super-majority that the government deemed acceptable to actually implement the changes.

Ha, you kind of answered your 1st point with your 2nd there . But I agree with you....I would like to see some major changes, but at the same time, I do not know if we ever will...

[iggypop]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Let me get this straight. Harper is proposing legislation he doesn't want to pass (There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass)? Will he be disappointed if it does pass? If you are suggesting this just to create an election issue, I'd personally have much more important issues than an extra day to vote, and even then I'm sure the Liberals could spin the issue to "we didn't believe the day of worship for many Canadians was an appropriate day to hold an election". That is just poor logic.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And why would he want an election right now when the most recent poll shows Liberals and PC within a few points of each other?

As it stands, we will be in a similar situation after an election as we are now except there would have been a couple months of campaigning.

So you agree that this issue really isn’t important enough to send us to the polls? Isn’t that perfect for the Conservatives who then can blame the Liberals for sending Canadians to the polls in the summer over a measly issue like this.

And yes you’re right the polls aren’t great, but are they going to get any better?
It may be a stretch to call it the perfect time, but I do believe it’s the best/only time that the Conservatives could gain a majority.

Okay this may all be a bit of a stretch to think that Harper actually wants to lose this bill and go to an election over it, but I still do believe he would like to get to the polls this spring/summer if he can. He’s going to need to lose on some proposed bill, whether its this bill or something else, I believe Harper is going to be proposing some odd bills and hope he can lose on one in the next month or so. That’s not to say I believe he would in fact win a majority, I’m just saying I think Harper realizes this is probably his only chance.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by iggypop

[COLOR=black]

So you agree that this issue really isn’t important enough to send us to the polls? Isn’t that perfect for the Conservatives who then can blame the Liberals for sending Canadians to the polls in the summer over a measly issue like this.

And yes you’re right the polls aren’t great, but are they going to get any better?
It may be a stretch to call it the perfect time, but I do believe it’s the best/only time that the Conservatives could gain a majority.

Okay this may all be a bit of a stretch to think that Harper actually wants to lose this bill and go to an election over it, but I still do believe he would like to get to the polls this spring/summer if he can. He’s going to need to lose on some proposed bill, whether its this bill or something else, I believe Harper is going to be proposing some odd bills and hope he can lose on one in the next month or so. That’s not to say I believe he would in fact win a majority, I’m just saying I think Harper realizes this is probably his only chance.

There is almost no chance the Conservatives could gain a majority right now. A few seats would change, but nothing on the magnitude to give any party many more seats than they have now. I don't think there is any issue serious enough right now where any party has been able to mobilize the populous to do anything other than vote the status quo with very poor voter turnout. A vote will put us in the exact same position as we are right now except that we will have spent huge sums on a meaningless election.

[ken0042]

My question- is this really a confidence issue? I was under the impression that it had to be a vote of importance; like a budget or something like that.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

That is the biggest gimmick ever. The whole point of the senate is that its not another elected house. It is not intended to be reflective of the population and not intended to provide more representation. It was designed to review items and try to make sure that they are effective. The triple E senate won't help matters at all; it will enforce regional disparity and regional differences. Legislation that benefits one region can get held up forever based on political ambitions. The public also voted down the Triple E senate...as part of the Charlottetown package.

This is correct, but the way it is set up right now, it does give some regions more clout than others and just basically becomes another House of Commons. Ontario and Quebec have 24 seats each I believe, Alberta has 6 seats. So how does such a configuration review items effectively? It does not, and it certainly wont when our Senators are appointed.

Now on the other hand, 2 or 3 senate seats per province, senators being elected in their province by the people of that province, not appointed by the PM, such a configuration might have a shot at effectively reviewing bills that Parliament is debating and passing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by redforever

This is correct, but the way it is set up right now, it does give some regions more clout than others and just basically becomes another House of Commons. Ontario and Quebec have 24 seats each I believe, Alberta has 6 seats. So how does such a configuration review items effectively? It does not, and it certainly wont when our Senators are appointed.

Now on the other hand, 2 or 3 senate seats per province, senators being elected in their province by the people of that province, not appointed by the PM, such a configuration might have a shot at effectively reviewing bills that Parliament is debating and passing.

Yeah, I don't completely disagree with you here. I guess the cynic in me just thinks that for the purpose of the senate it doesn't really matter which province the people come from. I think that most people agree with this...as long as the senators come from their province!