Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by dejon
Are you really ignorant, or just acting? If the former, try actually reading the platform

Any other party means no or little change. Only Green recognizes that for the plethora of issues in a modern society, we may have to completely change how we govern ourselves.

I am not niave enough to believe they can win, but with enough support in the next few elections, we can start to build in that direction. And even if they never win, increased Green support will at least show the other parties that it is time to look at serious change, not just minor changes each time a different party gets in and otherwise maintain the status quo.

Whoa, relax big fella and roll a... spliff(?) or something.

Ever seen someone try to jack his own thread?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because the 1/3 disapproval for change must come from the representatives of 1/3 of the population. This requirement does not, by necessity, favour one group of the people over another.

It allows a minority veto... just like the Senate. A Senate allows the minority (this is your whole point) to veto a law passed by the majority. By representing those areas which have low representation in your lower house, it gives them a stronger voice - but only inasmuch as a minority veto does.

Man, you should try wrapping your head around this: the existence of a conservative Constitution allows a veto by the representatives of any 1/3 of the pop. The existence of a regionally-biased Senate allows a veto by the representatives of a certain minority of the population, but not by others. That's what I am completely opposed to. You're running dangerously close to me declaring you an idiot and never responding seriously to you again, as I've repeated the same point a dozen times now.

And like the founding fathers... so yes, I must be so
anti-democracy!

Yup. The US was a great step forward for democracy, but not the final step.

Will of every person. Rule of the majority is not rule of the people, it's rule of the majority. Giving the minority a veto is the only real way to simulate rule of the people.

Which minority? The Constitution gives the representatives of any 1/3 of the people a veto. The Senate gives a certain minority of people a veto but not others.

how does that rig it in favor of a minority?

Oh, my God. If one minority has a veto power but another minority of equal size does not then the first minority has been deliberately favoured at the expense of others.

How?

Because a minority government would almost certainly be too weak to pass any of its initiatives, given that these would probably be controversial. Sigh. I'm really connecting the dots for you here. Have you ever studied the operation (not just the theory) of government systems outside the US? Seen what happens under minority governments? Tried to imagine why certain things wouldn't be possible in the US?

They don't?

To a Canadian the politics here is bland, bland, bland. It's not just that everything is moved to the right (which it is); it's also that the politicians (the ones anybody listens to, which disqualifies your namesake) sound remarkably similar when it comes down to policy ideas.

1) nitpicking: that would definately be a liberal constitution

Oh, my God #2.

In the original sense of the word "conservative" means to resist change. To "conserve" a previous set of values.

2) back on topic: this is as consistent with one man, one vote as is requiring a two-thirds majority - in both cases, some people have more influence than others.

In one system a certain minority is favoured directly by the voting system. In the other a certain minority gains more influence via the political situation/ the issue at hand. In the Senate system in the US a certain minority of people (those in small states) wield massively disproportionate power on all issues. Duh.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Man, you should try wrapping your head around this: the existence of a conservative Constitution allows a veto by the representatives of any 1/3 of the pop. The existence of a regionally-biased Senate allows a veto by the representatives of a certain minority of the population, but not by others. That's what I am completely opposed to. You're running dangerously close to me declaring you an idiot and never responding seriously to you again, as I've repeated the same point a dozen times now.

I see your point, I just don't understand how it's an objection. Surely at least partial representation of minorities is better than none, and it's equally obvious that those minorities that need such a veto (assuming you already have requirements similar to ours wrt amending your constitution) are going to be in the same region, given that the main reason this representation is needed is to prevent massively unfair wealth redistribution.

Yup. The US was a great step forward for democracy, but not the final step.

And your point is... would you call the people who wrote the American Constitution "anti-democracy"? I'm in fact espousing a position significantly closer to yours than theirs, given how far the balance of power has shifted between the State and Federal governments.

Which minority? The Constitution gives the representatives of any 1/3 of the people a veto. The Senate gives a certain minority of people a veto but not others.

See above.

Oh, my God. If one minority has a veto power but another minority of equal size does not then the first minority has been deliberately favoured at the expense of others.

See above.

Because a minority government would almost certainly be too weak to pass any of its initiatives, given that these would probably be controversial.

How is it different under a system with a senate and a system without one? OBVIOUSLY a minority government will have difficulty passing things - but the existance of a bicameral legislature doesn't change this, except inasmuch as it makes ALL legislation more difficult to pass.

Oh, my God #2.

In the original sense of the word "conservative" means to resist change. To "conserve" a previous set of values.

But a constitution protecting rights and freedoms is liberal in the original sense of the word.

In one system a certain minority is favoured directly by the voting system. In the other a certain minority gains more influence via the political situation/ the issue at hand. In the Senate system in the US a certain minority of people (those in small states) wield massively disproportionate power on all issues. Duh.

See above.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich
That's odd... because our system in fact favors them. Why do you think presidential candidates campaign so much in those states?

No, it doesn't. It favours California as a state in the sense that California gets more say than Wyoming. This is as it should be because California's 30 million completely outweigh Wyoming's 300 000 (by a factor of 100 to 1). The problem is that the people of California only wield 45(?) odd times as much power in the House of Reps (this is due to roundoff error and can be excused), 16 times as much power in presidential elections and exactly the same amount of power in the Senate.

Why should it be that the vote of a single Wyominger counts as much as the vote of 6 Californians in the Presidential election and as that of 100 Californians in the Senate? Why should the 300 000 people of Wyoming wield so much more power than the 300 000 people of Anaheim?

[Kuciwalker]

wrt Presidential elections, the larger states get tons of attention because the candidates can't campaign in every single state. It's beneficial to both.

(note: I guess I forgot to mention that I'm not in favor of the EC, I think the President should be directly elected. However, this is because I think the EC cannot fulfill its intended purpose - which was to have the people pick a set of other people they trusted to choose the President).

[Tingkai]

Well Harper is going nuts.

He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers.

I'm all in favour of more military spending but what the **** will we do with two carriers?????

And doesn't Harper realise that carriers need to be protected. Our frigates are designed for carrier protection. And these are helicopter carriers which can't operate without air cover (read battle carrier).

Is this how the Conservatives would be fiscally responsible?

What a nutcase.

[cinch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, it doesn't. It favours California as a state in the sense that California gets more say than Wyoming. This is as it should be because California's 30 million completely outweigh Wyoming's 300 000 (by a factor of 100 to 1). The problem is that the people of California only wield 45(?) odd times as much power in the House of Reps (this is due to roundoff error and can be excused), 16 times as much power in presidential elections and exactly the same amount of power in the Senate.

Why should it be that the vote of a single Wyominger counts as much as the vote of 6 Californians in the Presidential election and as that of 100 Californians in the Senate? Why should the 300 000 people of Wyoming wield so much more power than the 300 000 people of Anaheim?

You're looking at this from the wrong angle.

The people of Wyoming have equal representation with the people of California in ONE legislative body. In the HoR and Electoral College, they still get their asses handed to them. The Senate is a check and a balance (which I know you and Tingkai hate, but some of us value), inasmuchas Wyoming can protect itself from abuse by the more highly populated states. Wyoming is not given any more power to create legislation or force its will on the Big Boys... the people have merely been given the tools to protect themselves from abuse through the system.

Once again: it is not tyranny of the minority, it is simply protection from abuse.

(But, uh, NYE says we have to get back to talking electiony-stuff now... )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai H
He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers.

What would you put on them? What the point of aircraft carriers if you don't have guns?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Well Harper is going nuts.

He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers.

I'm all in favour of more military spending but what the **** will we do with two carriers?????

And doesn't Harper realise that carriers need to be protected. Our frigates are designed for carrier protection. And these are helicopter carriers which can't operate without air cover (read battle carrier).

Is this how the Conservatives would be fiscally responsible?

What a nutcase.

What?

[cinch]

Liberals to fund more soldiers, national day care
Last Updated Thu, 03 Jun 2004 0:45:56
WINDSOR, ONT. - The Liberal election platform promises funding for a national child-care system, adds 8,500 new soldiers for peacekeeping assignments and quadruples funding for wind energy.

Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

The Liberal document, called Moving Canada Forward, intends to spell out the differences between the Liberal's platform and that of the other parties, said Liberal Leader Paul Martin.

"Essentially we're answering two questions: One of them is…where we want to see Canada, what kind of Canada we want to have," Martin said in Winnipeg.

"And second, I think that by its very nature, our platform will demonstrate the very great differences between ourselves and our opponents."

The Liberal platform defines Canada's peacekeeping role and beefs up the Canadian Forces and Armed Forces Reserve.

The platform proposes a Quebec-style national child-care system and promises to invest more money in the Wind Power Production Incentive to promote alternative fuel options.

The Liberals would also increase venture capital resources to help commercialize and turn profits from the high-tech research going on in Canadian universities and create research commercialization centres across Canada, said a Canadia Press report.

The Liberals will unveil their platform Thursday morning at the Cleary International Centre in Windsor, Ontario, Martin's city of birth.

_________________________________

I'm assuming we will afford this all by having the soldiers run the day-care system.

Hey, I think it would serve multiple services: increased military presence, a more disciplined younger generation... and that's about it.

[Kuciwalker]

Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I see your point, I just don't understand how it's an objection. Surely at least partial representation of minorities is better than none, and it's equally obvious that those minorities that need such a veto (assuming you already have requirements similar to ours wrt amending your constitution) are going to be in the same region, given that the main reason this representation is needed is to prevent massively unfair wealth redistribution.

How do you know that the minorities which need protecting are in small states? Why is there more chance of them being in small states than in big ones? Especially when certain states (California and New York spring to mind) are very big in population but have vast, relatively less-populated hinterlands which in most ways demographically resemble smaller states surrounding them. Why does Rhode Island deserve the status of protected minority (when it so strongly resembles Massachusets and other New England states) when rural New York does not (when its interests might often conflict with the urbanized portions of the state). An even better example is in Canada, where almost the whole population of Ontario is in the urbanised southeast and the north and west resemble much more strongly the very type of minority you claim the Senate system protects.

The fact is that minorities exist spread across all jurisdictions. The fact that they take up an entire state is what draws attention to certain ones, and leads to this misguided attempt to balance the power of the "big states". You should stop thinking about states as monolithic entities with a single viewpoint (exemplified by the idea of states as sovereign signatories to a union). This historical reality is long gone (and in Canada never existed). Americans (and Canadians) may take up residence in any jurisdiction in their country without seeking the approval of the jurisdiction in question. As long as this freedom of movement is allowed and is practiced, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

And your point is... would you call the people who wrote the American Constitution "anti-democracy"? I'm in fact espousing a position significantly closer to yours than theirs, given how far the balance of power has shifted between the State and Federal governments.

I'm saying that for the time they were pro-democracy. In the modern world their view of government would be distinctly feudal. I would hope we've made progress since then.

How is it different under a system with a senate and a system without one? OBVIOUSLY a minority government will have difficulty passing things - but the existance of a bicameral legislature doesn't change this, except inasmuch as it makes ALL legislation more difficult to pass.

NOT TRUE. Minority governments are weaker by their very nature than are other governments. There is far less chance of them being able to push legislation through two houses than there is of a majority government being able to do so, and this difference is much more pronounced than in a unicameral system. This is why I ask that you study the actual functioning of non-American government systems instead of just the theory.

But a constitution protecting rights and freedoms is liberal in the original sense of the word.

What's much more important (in this discussion) than the content of the constitution is the process by which it is amended. No matter what is contained in the constitution, if it takes a supermajority to amend it then it is a conservative document, as it tends to maintain the status quo.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

Probably just about ten times as large. Except that we live within our means.

[Tingkai]

About Harper's Navy, see:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086127811174&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Harper wants an 80,000-person military, up from 52,000 today. He'd retrofit aging CF-18 warplanes, replace antique destroyers with new warships, buy several supply ships and some heavy tanks. And on the costlier side he'd purchase two helicopter aircraft carriers to ferry troops and armour to hot spots, and strategic lift aircraft to get troops there even faster.

Reuters story calls them "hybrid maritime carriers" (Damm it, we need carriers for the Great Lakes and to stop them Saskatchewan pirates!)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31220066.htm

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How do you know that the minorities which need protecting are in small states? Why is there more chance of them being in small states than in big ones?

Did you miss the part about wealth redistribution?

Especially when certain states (California and New York spring to mind) are very big in population but have vast, relatively less-populated hinterlands which in most ways demographically resemble smaller states surrounding them.

And all those areas have to worry about are being exploited within their state, so the federal government has nothing to do with it.

The fact is that minorities exist spread across all jurisdictions. The fact that they take up an entire state is what draws attention to certain ones, and leads to this misguided attempt to balance the power of the "big states".

See above. Diversity within a state is handled within a state.

I'm saying that for the time they were pro-democracy. In the modern world their view of government would be distinctly feudal. I would hope we've made progress since then.

feudal?

NOT TRUE. Minority governments are weaker by their very nature than are other governments. There is far less chance of them being able to push legislation through two houses than there is of a majority government being able to do so, and this difference is much more pronounced than in a unicameral system.

How? They are both equally hindered by a bicameral system.

What's much more important (in this discussion) than the content of the constitution is the process by which it is amended. No matter what is contained in the constitution, if it takes a supermajority to amend it then it is a conservative document, as it tends to maintain the status quo.

Touché