Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

Now, let's see if the NDP can keep the vote in the face of the 'Harper is a religious-wingnut-Westerner' argument.

[notyoueither]

Let's see if Canadians are stupid enough, and bigoted enough, to buy it again.

[Tingkai]

So now the NDP are bigots???

[notyoueither]

Nope. But they stand to lose votes if the old stand by is trotted out and people buy it.

Vote Liberal to prevent the Western Barbarians from bashing down the gates.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, I think Harper is proving very difficult to pin that tail on.

He seems the have a genuine sense of humour. He has those big doey eyes. And he has a clear message.

I think the Tories are winning in Ontario because people are not stupid enough to buy the Martin crap of saying 'Harper says...' when a back bencher voices his opinion. Nor are they stupid enough to ignore the actual abuses of the Liberals while the Liberals attempt to pull the cloak over the mess and scream while pointing at what the 'bad guy' might do. And I think that Harper's clarity and sticking on message is exactly the way for him to fight this campaign.

The only way for the Tories to do better would be to have McKay, but alas he did not run for the leadership.

I'm very concerned about Quebec though. The Tories cannot truely return from the wilderness until they build some bridges there (preferably with non-seperatists).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by Tingkai
In the US Senate, 26 of the smallest states with 18% of the US population holds a majority of senate seats.

So even if 80% of Americans wanted a law, this tiny minority could block it.

Do you know the probabilites of all that minority being united? It includes not only the midwest, but Hawaii, Alaska, and a few northeastern states...

Dude, if you're going to post threads in a Canadian politics threads then you need to:
a) Learn about the politics of your own country;
b) Learn about Canadian politics;
c) Learn about basic politics.

The smallest states can band together to form a voting block. Why would they do this? Obviously because they know the power that comes from being united. As a voting block, they demand special priviliges for their member states. Rhode Island gets this, Alaska gets that and so on.

Originally posted by Kucinich

And the minority abuse their power. If you want a law passed, you need their support and that's going to cost money.

Using their power at all is an abuse of it?

Why should they have that power at all? Any system that allows 18% of the population to have control over government decisions is flawed.

Originally posted by Kucinich

After 9-11, the US federal government gave money to state governments to create terrorism response programmes. Wyoming got more money per capita ($38.31) than New York State ($5.47) and 48 states received more federal funding per capita than New York State, even though New York was ranked as most likely to be hit by a terrorist attack.

Perhaps because needed terrorism funding doesn't really have ANYTHING to do with the number of people in the state? It has to do with the facilities that need to be secured.

Read the linked story. The US government listed New York and California as been the top two most likely terrorist targets. But funding was split on a state by state basis. So Wyoming got the same amount as New York State.

Why did this happen? Because of the regionally based senate. In order to get the bill passed, the proponents had to get the support of the smaller states. Those states would not support the bill unless they got money, even though their states didn't need the money.

Originally posted by Kucinich

With the first past the post system, the minority who are actually in control is even smaller than 18%. Effectively, 10% of the American population can control which laws are made and the composition of the US supreme court.

Assuming a massive conspiracy amongst this 10% to specifically live in these states with just enough to elect the candidate of their choice to office... put on your tinfoil hat.

See if you can follow this:

The American political system is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. To win a senate seat, a candidate needs 51% of the vote.

These small states represent 18% of the Americans. The senators from the states are elected by a simple majority (51%). What's 51% of 18%? Round that number up and you get 10%.

So the senators from these small states have majority control of the senate even though they are effectively elected by only 10% of the population.

This isn't about conspiracies and tinhats. This is about basic politics 101.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Nope. But they stand to lose votes if the old stand by is trotted out and people buy it.

Vote Liberal to prevent the Western Barbarians from bashing down the gates.

So you think that Canadians want to elect a rightwing nutcase?

Because you're saying the Liberals will lose votes if they call Harper a rightwing nutcase and the voters believe it.

And you're crazy if you think Liberals or the NDP have said that Westerners are barbarians, or that all Westerners are rightwing nutcases.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think the Tories are winning in Ontario because people are not stupid enough to buy the Martin crap of saying 'Harper says...' when a back bencher voices his opinion. Nor are they stupid enough to ignore the actual abuses of the Liberals while the Liberals attempt to pull the cloak over the mess and scream while pointing at what the 'bad guy' might do. And I think that Harper's clarity and sticking on message is exactly the way for him to fight this campaign.

From what I see, the voters are saying "we don't want the Liberals."

The danger for Harper is that people will start putting his promises together and realising they add up. He promises billions in tax cuts and says it will come from existing surpluses then he turns around and promises buillions in new spending and says it will come from existing surpluses.

Eliminating the middle income tax bracket will cost $16 billion a year. That by itself eliminates any budget surplus.

So how is Harper going to fulfil his other promises of more spending on healthcare and defence plus lower corporate taxes, lower EU premiums.

As for clarity, what the hell is a modified maritime carrier?

Promises, promises, promises.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Dude, if you're going to post threads in a Canadian politics threads then you need to:
a) Learn about the politics of your own country;
b) Learn about Canadian politics;
c) Learn about basic politics.

The smallest states can band together to form a voting block. Why would they do this? Obviously because they know the power that comes from being united. As a voting block, they demand special priviliges for their member states. Rhode Island gets this, Alaska gets that and so on.

Dude, since this is a Canpol thread, one should stay focused on Canada. No way - no how, could 18% of the population hold up didley in our Senate.

In fact, if Ont, Quebec, and BC vote for a measure it passes. That leaves 7 other provinces stuck sucking their thumbs. That is the worst case. 3 out of ten with 22 out of 29 million population being blocked by 7 out of ten with 7 out of 29 million.

[Sorry, I misstated that. Quebec, Ont, and BC are a majority in the Senate (54 of 105). The minimum blocking vote would be Nfd, PEI, NS, NB, Man, Sask, Alta, and BC) representing 54 seats and 8 provinces with 11 million out of 29 million people.]

Those don't seem to be the same odds you want to debate skywalker on.

If the majority of regions with the majority of the population (Ont, Que, and the West; or Ont, Que, and the Maritimes; or Que, the Maritimes and the West; or...) the issue is a done deal and would pass.

Can we elect them now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai



So you think that Canadians want to elect a rightwing nutcase?

Because you're saying the Liberals will lose votes if they call Harper a rightwing nutcase and the voters believe it.

And you're crazy if you think Liberals or the NDP have said that Westerners are barbarians, or that all Westerners are rightwing nutcases.

No. I am saying you are little better than a bigot (and possibly not at all better afterall) for thinking that any politician that comes out of the West and is Conservative is a rightwing nutcase.

re your second para, what is it you think I'm saying? You seem to have lost the thread.

Also, your assurances about my being crazy would be reassuring had recent politics not gone down the way they have. They might not say all, but they say 'any' who dare tread in national politics. Hey, it worked, so I can't damn them for efficiency, but I'll let you know that the West is about ready to dump a crap storm on the rest if our MPs keep being greeted the way they have been.

Western Conservative = need not run for PM is as good as telling us to put up the polls and start the vote to get the **** out of Dodge.

[Tingkai]

Speaking about trotting out the old stand by.



But thank you. I keep forgetting that you're an addle-minded, ill-mannered, racist idiot. But just when I've fogotten, you always come through and remind me.

[notyoueither]

Actually, I am wrong again after looking closer.

The minimum blocking vote by population would have Que and the Maritimes opposed. They would have 54 seats, 5 provinces, and 9 out of 29 million.

Still, a significant minority. Pry PEI away, and the bill passes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Speaking about trotting out the old stand by.



But thank you. I keep forgetting that you're an addle-minded, ill-mannered, racist idiot. But just when I've fogotten, you always come through and remind me.

Not my thoughts, buddy. Simply telling you what is being thought by people around here. Would you shoot the person telling you why French-Quebecers were fed up and getting ready to think about bolting if that person told you in 1960?

But, I will keep a warm place for you reserved. You seem to earn it everytime anything like this is discussed.

[RedFred]

Thrilled as I am about the two seat projection for the Greens, I still don't expect it. Closer to the election voters often think strategically whereas earlier in the campaign voters often give 'nice to have' answers. Plus 10%, 15% even 20% support in BC may not get them a plurality of votes in any one riding.

Speaking of voting strategically, I may have do it myself given I have the Liberal "crosses burning in the lawns of Prince George as we speak" idiot in my riding. I figure she got dumped for cabinet more because she was too egotistical to apologise, rather then on account of the PG comment itself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
See if you can follow this:

The American political system is dominated by two parties, the democrats and the republicans. To win a senate seat, a candidate needs 51% of the vote.

These small states represent 18% of the Americans. The senators from the states are elected by a simple majority (51%). What's 51% of 18%? Round that number up and you get 10%.

So the senators from these small states have majority control of the senate even though they are effectively elected by only 10% of the population.

This isn't about conspiracies and tinhats. This is about basic politics 101.

The same weakness is present in your current legislature - 26% of the population can control the government...