Canadian Election: It's On

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You really should read the thread before you comment. I already voiced my support for a Constitution that's difficult to change.

Which is completely inconsistant with your other ideas... requiring a two-thirds majority is no less a check on democracy than requiring approval from a nonrepresentative Senate.

[notyoueither]

Piss off Yank, unless you have an opinion on the Greens.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Hmmm... is this the Tingkaiverse? Last time I checked, the past 200-odd years showed us that a strictly limited democracy with strong checks and balances was barely adequate, but better than anything else that had been tried...

No, it isn't. Your government barely limps along and spends half its time deadlocked in the pettiest politics the Western world has the misfortune to witness.

You're government scares me. All power seems to rest in one branch of government...

You should probably check out the governments of the rest of the Commonwealth. They're remarkably similar.

[notyoueither]

I'm thinking of voting Green just to lend them some support.

I read that they now have candidates in all 308 ridings.

Lord knows my local haystack doesn't require the extra vote.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kucinich
What the heck is the difference? An Act being "Lawful" means it "conforms to the higher Law" i.e. the Constitution - which requires interpreting the Constitution.

Both judiciaries have the power of judicial review.

Okay, one last poli sci lesson for Kuci (and KH is right, Kuci should read the thread).

Americans see their constitution as being pretty-much written in stone and all other laws must conform to it. Americans often talk about what did the founders think when they wrote the constitution. This approach is not taken in all democratic countries.

In Britian, there is no constitution, there is no higher law. What is lawful is determined by precedent.

In Canada before 1982, we had the BNA which set out general rules for how the country should be governed, But it was not a higher law like the constitution.

The Charter in '82 moved Canada to a more American-style system, but not completely. No Canadian would ever wonder "What did Trudeau and Lougheed mean when they wrote the Charter?

We see our Charter as a flexible document. Hence this discussion.

[notyoueither]

101 reasons to vote Green.

1. Trees, they are a fine idea.
2. Uhmmm

[Kuciwalker]

In Britian, there is no constitution, there is no higher law. What is lawful is determined by precedent.

aka unwritten constitution

The Charter in '82 moved Canada to a more American-style system, but not completely. No Canadian would ever wonder "What did Trudeau and Lougheed mean when they wrote the Charter?

Actually, you do, pretty much by definition. "Does this law conform to our Charter" requires asking the question "what does our Charter mean?", which requires the question "what were the writers trying to say?"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse You should probably check out the governments of the rest of the Commonwealth. They're remarkably similar.

I've noticed. It's sad.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, it isn't. Your government barely limps along and spends half its time deadlocked in the pettiest politics the Western world has the misfortune to witness.

Like condoms thrown in the House of Commons?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Explain how this allows "tyranny of the minority" any more than a requirement for two-thirds approval...

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.

And tyranny of the majority has often been the worst kind, at least right after tyranny of a lone dictator. Look what Athens' wonderful democracy did to Socrates. Tyranny of the majority, under the guise of "democracy", finds itself justified in any crime.

Fear of the "mob", fear of the people. You sound like an Englishman portending doom for the USA in 1800.

Democracy does not mean "majority rule", it means "rule of the people". All the people. Not just the majority of the people. The collective will of the people.

This is the fuzziest statement ever. What do you mean "collective will of the people" if you don't mean the will of the majority of them? Why does special treatment for the people living in small states more fully reflect the will of the people? State lines are (to a greater and greater extent) artificial divisions between citizens of a single nation. To guarantee more representation for one group of a million citizens than for another based on something so arbitrary as their state of residence is the worst kind of unfairness.

It's not rigged in favor of a minority. The minority can't pass anything without majority approval, and vice-versa. It forces an idea to be acceptable to at least some people on both sides - which means the idea is much more likely to actually be a good idea.

It is rigged in favour of a minority because a minority of people spread over several small states can block passage of bills whereas a minority of people inhabiting large states cannot.

OK, I really missed the connection there. Moreover, our large parties are really coalitions under the guise of a single party - just like everywhere.

You missed the connection there because you have no experience with the parliamentary system. Smaller parties exist on the hope that they may seriously affect the bills that a minority government passes. Minority governments are rare in times of a fairly solid majority view of the path the country should take, but are very common in times of uncertainty. We're about to witness a minority government in Canada for the first time in 20 years. The existence of excessively strong checks and balances destroys the chance of a third party having a serious influence on legislation passed by the government. In the face of such obstacles third parties wither away and the views they represent are subsumed in a larger coalition party. This party then generally moderates their platform to the point of blandness since the existence of a single serious rival places political stress on them from a single direction. As a minority viewpoint holder I would never subscribe to a system which has generated a centrist two-party oligarchy for the last century. Some of the best ideas come from the fringes of political opinion, yet these do not get heard in the US.

We have 4 major parties in Canada (down just recently from 5). The UK has 3 (that I know of). A two-party system could never accurately represent the range of views the public holds.

Which is completely inconsistant with your other ideas... requiring a two-thirds majority is no less a check on democracy than requiring approval from a nonrepresentative Senate.

You should probably gain an understanding of what I base my views on then: the principle of one man, one vote. One man's vote in Nanaimo should count the same as one man's vote in St. John's. I think there is an enormous value to be had in a conservative (in the truest sense of the word) Constitution enshrining the fundamental civil and human rights of citizens. I don't think that there's any value in a system which sets out to empower a certain minority of citizens based on where they choose to make their home.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, it isn't. Your government barely limps along and spends half its time deadlocked in the pettiest politics the Western world has the misfortune to witness.

Like condoms thrown in the House of Commons?

How about 4 bullet-ridden Congressmen, numbnuts? The condom was thrown by a member of the public, and hardly disrupted the functioning of the government in any significant way.

I've noticed. It's sad.

You're welcome to stick with your system, but I can sure as hell tell you that I'd be right pissed off if I were a New Yorker, a Californian or a Texan.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Fear of the "mob", fear of the people. You sound like an Englishman portending doom for the USA in 1800.

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

This is the fuzziest statement ever. What do you mean "collective will of the people" if you don't mean the will of the majority of them?

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.

It is rigged in favour of a minority because a minority of people spread over several small states can block passage of bills whereas a minority of people inhabiting large states cannot.

how does that rig it in favor of a minority?

You missed the connection there because you have no experience with the parliamentary system. Smaller parties exist on the hope that they may seriously affect the bills that a minority government passes. Minority governments are rare in times of a fairly solid majority view of the path the country should take, but are very common in times of uncertainty. We're about to witness a minority government in Canada for the first time in 20 years.

So far, no connection...

The existence of excessively strong checks and balances destroys the chance of a third party having a serious influence on legislation passed by the government.

How?

Some of the best ideas come from the fringes of political opinion, yet these do not get heard in the US.

They don't?

We have 4 major parties in Canada (down just recently from 5). The UK has 3 (that I know of). A two-party system could never accurately represent the range of views the public holds.

You should probably gain an understanding of what I base my views on then: the principle of one man, one vote. One man's vote in Nanaimo should count the same as one man's vote in St. John's. I think there is an enormous value to be had in a conservative (in the truest sense of the word) Constitution enshrining the fundamental civil and human rights of citizens.

1) nitpicking: that would definately be a liberal constitution

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How about 4 bullet-ridden Congressmen, numbnuts? The condom was thrown by a member of the public, and hardly disrupted the functioning of the government in any significant way.

Notice the

are you MrFun's DL?

You're welcome to stick with your system, but I can sure as hell tell you that I'd be right pissed off if I were a New Yorker, a Californian or a Texan.

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

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by notyoueither
btw, anyone else think the Greens should be in the debates?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by notyoueither
101 reasons to vote Green.

1. Trees, they are a fine idea.
2. Uhmmm

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.

[cinch]

I think I have my election strategy worked out:

I'm phoning ElectionsCanada tomorrow to check on my registration status... I'll try and get registered to my new address (Edmonton Centre), but if I can't work that out for some reason, I'll have to vote in my old riding of Vegreville-Wainwright.

If I vote in E-Centre, I'll be tossing a bone Annie Mac's way, if only to try and stop the Blue Menace from wiping out Redmonton. (I should say: Harper has actually been impressing me as of late, but I still cannot bring myself to vote for a party that would guarantee the alienation of homosexuals, as well as stifle the health care system further.)

If I have to vote out in the boonies, I will vote Green. This is because the Tory incumbent, Leon Benoit, has NO CHANCE of losing. Therefore, I shall vote Greenie so that they can take my $1.75 and build for the future.