Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

BTW, when PEI sinks under the waves, then I would support eliminating their 'rotten bouroughs'. In the meantime, they were some of the fine people who voted to make Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces, and not simply leave tham as economic hinterlands for Ontario.

Hmm, side with PEI, or Ontario? Tough choice!

Of course, when one has abused as much as they have abused when one is from Ontario or Quebec, it is to be feared that the 'regions' may gain power.

TOUGH!

[notyoueither]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

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

Strict rep by pop is rule by mob. Tyranny of the majority if you will.

There are interests in a nation that cannot be represented strictly by population, especially in a nation as vast as Canada.

[KrazyHorse]

Yah, yah. In Alberta Quebec is a Central Canada exploiter, and in Quebec Alberta is just another English opressor.

The two attitudes are so remarkably similar that it's laughable.

[notyoueither]

Yuk, yuk. However, both views have basis in fact.

The French may not have been in on the exploitation, that doesn't mean it didn't, and doesn't, happen.

[notyoueither]

Anyways, scream at you tomorrow.

At least we showed the young-un's what a debate is all aboot.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Strict rep by pop is rule by mob. Tyranny of the majority if you will.

There are interests in a nation that cannot be represented strictly by population, especially in a nation as vast as Canada.

Ah yes, the elitist response. We can't allow the people to rule because they are a mob.



The fact is the past 200-odd years have shown the people are quite capable of ruling themselves effectively. The majority rules is the best system. It's far better than letting the minority decides what's best for us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Ah yes, the elitist response. We can't allow the people to rule because they are a mob.



The fact is the past 200-odd years have shown the people are quite capable of ruling themselves effectively. The majority rules is the best system. It's far better than letting the minority decides what's best for us.

Speaking of a strict rep by pop system, with no checks on that based on regions or other important considerations, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

[Tingkai]

You're opposed to democracy. You want barriers to prevent rule by democracy. You oppose majority rule.

Regional senates = rich senators blocking the majority.

[Tingkai]

The American elite created an elected senate because they did not fully believe in democracy. The American senate was initially chosen only by people who owned a minimum amount of property, in other words the rich.

The "checks and balances" was simply a ploy by the rich to control the government.

Besides, where do you draw the line on regional senates. Do we determine senate seats by multiprovincial regions, or by province, or by intra-provincial regions? What about by postal codes?

If you say that the regions need power to protect themselves from the majority, then how do you say no to the 50,000 northern Manitobans who say they need protection. Or how about the people in North Okanagan who need protection from South Okanagan. Or how about the rural areas need protection from urban areas.

The democratic solution is simple: one person, one vote.

[cinch]

Wow.

The blind support of Tyrrany of the Majority espoused by some in this thread is nigh-on sickening.

Here're the facts:

The HoC is, basically, pure Rep by Pop (yeah, yeah, PEI, get over it).

An elected, veto-only, regionally-divided Senate would simply AUGMENT the Rep by Pop system. It would act as a check on Parliamentary bills, to ensure that no region, no matter how small, would be damaged due to the will of a more populous area.

The pro-Senate people are not saying we should do away with Rep by Pop altogether... The HoC will remain the more powerful house, in that it contains the executive and can draw up laws of its own. We simply ask that we tweak the current system by giving it some more regional perspective.

It has nothing to do with "hating democracy", and everything to do with wishing to uphold the tenets of a true commonwealth: representation for all, INCLUDING the less populated regions.

[cinch]

From CBC.ca...

__________________________________________

No plans to change abortion laws: Harper
Last Updated Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:06:21
WHITBY ONT - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tried to steer clear of the abortion controversy on Tuesday, saying his government has no plans to change existing laws.

Harper, who was in Whitby, Ont. making public his crime and justice platform, was questioned by reporters about comments by the Conservative's health critic who called for third-party counselling for women who want to terminate a pregnancy.

"I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum," Harper said, adding he has no intention of discussing the subject further during the election campaign.

Harper said MP Rob Merrifield's comments have nothing to do with federal policy and the practices he was advocating fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes." When asked how he would vote on an abortion bill, Harper said it would depend on the content.

But he said he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services, again asserting that this is a health matter and under provincial jurisdiction

Discussing his justice platform, Harper said the federal gun registry would be eliminated under a Conservative government, with money being diverted to strengthen law enforcement.

"Canadians want a new approach to criminal justice," Harper said.

He said scrapping the controversial registry would save $25 million to $100 million a year in maintenance costs.

Savings would be used to hire 200 more RCMP officers and pay for a sex-offender registry.

Harper also talked about a number of sentencing reforms, including ending statutory release for criminals who serve two-thirds of their sentences, banning conditional sentences such as house arrest for serious crimes and eliminating the "faint hope" clause, which allows killers to seek parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence.

Consecutive sentences would replace concurrent sentences for multiple, violent offences, he said.

"There should be no volume discount for murder or other serious offences," Harper said.

Harper also announced that anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence would be classified as a dangerous offender, allowing them to be jailed indefinitely.

The Conservatives would also tighten child porn laws and deal with the backlog of people ordered deported, Harper said.

______________________________________

on the abortion matter.

on scrapping the gun registry and putting funds into law enforcement.

on consecutive sentencing.

on overall harshening of justice sytem... There's some logic to it, but I don't want the Cons to get too carried away playing big sheriff on their high horse.

[St Leo]

How, exactly, does one tighten child porn laws? Are they going to outlaw family albums with clothed baby pictures or something? Will IRC, Freenet, and Usenet access be criminalised?

This is just more mindless Conservative blather like the "teh government waste" hot air.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by cinch
Wow.

The blind support of Tyrrany of the Majority espoused by some in this thread is nigh-on sickening.

Bull****. Until you can explain why the 140 000 people of PEI deserve Senate representation equal to that of Alberta or Quebec, yet the 140 000 people living along Ontario's western border don't, your scheme is unfair and deliberately stilted to favour a certain minority at the expense of other minorities.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The American elite created an elected senate because they did not fully believe in democracy. The American senate was initially chosen only by people who owned a minimum amount of property, in other words the rich.

to clarify, the original (1789) procedure for choosing US Senators was election by state legislatures. Qualification for voting for state legislatures varied from state to state. Member of the House of Representatives were chosen by the same electorate as voted for the lower house of each state legislature, which again varied by state, but was more inclusive than the electorates for upper houses. The senate was therefore a check on democracy, in that 1. It was chosen indirectly 2. the legislatures who chose it included upper houses of state legislatures, elected on a more limited franchise than house members. 3. elections were less frequent, so Senators were more independent of electorates 4. Senators elected by state, not representative of population. So the Senate served several purposes simultaneously as a check on "rule by numbers" it A. Favored the wealthy B. Favored local politicians over direct elections by voters (not the same as B) C. It favored Senatorial independence - a Burkean check on democracy D. It faovred small states, whos interests might otherwise be ignored.

Now A was outdated after 1840 or so, since most states changed their electoral laws to abolish property qualifications for both branches of the state legislatures. The senate continued to serve purposes b,c and d. In the late 19th c discontent grew with B, as state legislatures grew corrupt. Direct election was instituted for this reason.

The senate remains for reasons C and D - a Burkean check, and to protect small states.

Should small states/provinces get protections that other entities do not? It depends. If you consider the state/province to be a semi-soveriegn entity, representing fundamental interests more important that a sub region within a state or province the answer would be yes. If not, then no. In the US at least, state laws differ, sometimes dramatically, on issues from criminal law, to marriage and divorce, to regulation of corporations and property. States are real political - legal entities, in a way that regions of states are NOT. This is true even in areas like the northeast, where emotional loyalty to states is often low. Of course in the south we have places where state loyalty, if not quite at the Quebec level, is a serious thing.

Im not sure how this plays out in Canada.