Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo
IANAL, but there is a difference between an editorial and an ad. Editorials are a "pull" medium. People opt in to read editorials. Ads are a "push" medium. They force people to look at them.

Are you mad? Last time I bought a paper it was to read the print, not to look at the ads.

Do you skip the programming and fast-forward to the ads?

[KrazyHorse]

I think you've misunderstood him. That's exactly what he was saying.

[notyoueither]

How does one force anyone to look at anything? I have gotten quite good at tuning out the ads.

[Tingkai]

Ben: We need to get rid of the senate. It serves no purpose. In Canada, it is a rubber stamp. In the US, it gives too much power to the rich and distorts the basic concept of one person, one vote.

The crazy Reform/Alliance/Conservatives (RAC) want a senate with seats assigned by province. That means the 140,00 people on PEI would get the same power as the 4 million people in BC. That's crazy. That's undemocratic.

More than that, it would give the rural areas too much power. Imagine four senators for BC: one for the Lower Mainland, one for the Island, one for the North and one for the Southern Interior. The majority of BC residents would only get one senate vote (lower mainland) while the minority would get three votes. That's undemocratic.

And the battles within the region woud create massive problems for the senators. Kelowna and Penticton have different interests. Each city has its own MP, but which city would a senator represent?

It's already difficult for an MP to serve the 100,000 people who live in a riding. How effectively could a senator serve 2 million people? How effectively could a senator reflect their opinions and their needs? Not very well.

Creating this Americanized senate would deprive all Canadians of a basic democratic right: one person, one vote because a US-style senate would become all powerful.

Conservatives say it would be a house of sober second thought, but why would the senate politicians be different than the MPs? They wouldn't be any different.

They also say that there wouldn't be party politics in a Senate, but they never say why. To get elected to a senate would require massive resources in terms of money and manpower. Candidates would naturally join political parties to tap into these resources.

A two-tiered system also gives politicans an easy way to shift blame. Look at the US. If something goes wrong, senators blames H of Rs and the H of Rs blames the senators. In the Canadian system, we know who to praise and who to blame. Mulroney and the PCs screwed up and got the boot. The Liberals look like they're headed the same way.

An elected senate is simply a stupid idea.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
An elected senate is simply a stupid idea.

However, having a PM with the powers of a dictator is worse.

[Tingkai]

The PM doesn't have the power of a dictator.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
How does one force anyone to look at anything? I have gotten quite good at tuning out the ads.

His point is that you buy the newspaper knowing what the editorial stance is, whereas the ads which are there base themselves on simply catching your eye. They're forced upon your attention much more than an editorial is. I don't necessarily agree with the argument; I'm just correcting what appeared to be a misinterpretation.

[notyoueither]

Really? Tell me the last bill that was defeated that the PM said would pass, and meant it.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm in favour of a unicameral legislature, however:

if people want an elected, powerful Senate enough then we should do it as follows: (I've posted this idea before)

1) Divvy up the Senate seats by region, based strictly on population (changes as pop. shifts). The Maritimes get 10%, Quebec gets 25%, the West gets 30%, Ontario gets 35%

2) Within each region the candidates are elected based on a proportional representation system

3) The Senate will be less powerful than in the US. Instead of having the ability to propose bills, write in amendments etc. they have a simple power of veto. They must vote on all bills passed to them by the Commons within 4(?) weeks. Commons may pass a bill over a Senate veto with a 2/3 supermajority.

[St Leo]

I wish it were legal to creampie politicians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


His point is that you buy the newspaper knowing what the editorial stance is, whereas the ads which are there base themselves on simply catching your eye. They're forced upon your attention much more than an editorial is. I don't necessarily agree with the argument; I'm just correcting what appeared to be a misinterpretation.

And I say bull **** to the idea that the ads somehow force themselves into your consciousness over a short period of time.

However, you also buy the paper knowing that we live in a free society (I would hope) where any number of miscreants may assault your senses through the purchase of advertising in said paper.

What is being said is that we must be protected from the freedom in the ultimate arena of the free. And that, my good sir, is hogwash.

[KrazyHorse]

Does anybody else find the US legislative process as Byzantine as I do?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo
I wish it were legal to creampie politicians.

I'll bet you do wish that your security were assured while that of others is not. Now... leftist.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And I say bull **** to the idea that the ads somehow force themselves into your consciousness over a short period of time.

However, you also buy the paper knowing that we live in a free society (I would hope) where any number of miscreants may assault your senses through the purchase of advertising in said paper.

What is being said is that we must be protected from the freedom in the ultimate arena of the free. And that, my good sir, is hogwash.

Why are you arguing with me? I told you it's not my point of view.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Really? Tell me the last bill that was defeated that the PM said would pass, and meant it.

Joe Clark

A PM cannot do whatever he/she feels like doing. The PM must maintain the support of the party.

Look at Thatcher. She lost support within her party and was kicked out of power.

Diefenbaker had the same thing happen to him, IIRC.