Canadian Election: It's On

[KrazyHorse]

And letting 27 million people be held hostage by 4.5 million is not the way to solve things.

Because in a choice between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority I'll choose the majority every time.

[notyoueither]

You accept a tyranny by default. We look for nontyrannical solutions.

[KrazyHorse]

The Maritimes will be most pleased to hear that their oppressed brethren in the West are looking out for their best interests. Especially when Harper does things like call them layabout feeding off the teat of Canada.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You accept a tyranny by default. We look for nontyrannical solutions.

You haven't found one yet.

I've proposed two that would both:

a) Give the West an (approximately) equal say to that of either Ontario or Quebec

and

b) Maintain the principle of one man one vote

[notyoueither]

Actually, he says that their development has been screwed by the very processes of federal Canada, not by they themselves.

He is getting enough traction that several Atlantic premiers agree with him.

Hold your scare party somewhere else.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You haven't found one yet.

I've proposed two that would both:

a) Give the West an (approximately) equal say to that of either Ontario or Quebec

Your proposal is inadequate. I already said why.

[KrazyHorse]

Now he says that. Back before he had to worry about being elected he said that people in the Maritimes should move the hell out and find jobs in the rest of Canada.

[notyoueither]

No, he spoke about a culture of defeatism. He was correct. Canada as constituted is defeated if it does not accept change.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Your proposal is inadequate. I already said why.

You haven't really. Unless you mean your statement that (I paraphrase) some minimum representation is required from each region.

If that's what you mean, then:

a) Only the Maritimes would have significantly less representation in the first scheme

b) What about my proposal to drop the number of provinces to 3?

[notyoueither]

b is not worth discussing, since it would never happen.

a, I said each province should get 5% and then throw the pop around.

[notyoueither]

... and then elect it.

[notyoueither]

Are the people of Ontario and Quebec worried that they can't get other people in Canada to agree with them?

If not enough others in the rest of Canada agree with them, should it really be a law?

[KrazyHorse]

It's taken 800 years of gradual change to get from a system where only rich men could vote and representation was thrown around haphazardly so that some boroughs had one constituent to where voting rights are guaranteed for everybody and representation is distributed (almost) equally across the entire country.

I will not be party to any proposal which takes a step backwards and attempts to rig some balance between regions by giving some Canadians a bigger political stick than others simply because they choose to live in a small province. That's it.

Come up with a system that doesn't violate this principle. That's the only thing which isn't up for negotiation.

[notyoueither]

Yes, understood. You are a strictly rule by mob sort. Any checks on the mass of the mob are not welcome.

Hopefully, your view will not win out. Of course, we will disagree on that.

[KrazyHorse]

rule by mob

Funny, that's exactly the phrase that aristocrats used to use to describe any form of democracy.

Any checks on the mass of the mob are not welcome

On the contrary, I'm a strong believer in a Constitution which is more resistant to change that the average law.