Canadian Election: It's On

[KrazyHorse]

That's the entire frigging point. You generally will have to get some people on both sides to agree about something before it goes through, which will result in legislation acceptable to a much larger number of people and less likely to infringe on anyone.

Yarggghhhh.

a) This whole political dualism thing runs right down to your core, doesn't it. "Both sides" my ass. There are a billion sides to any issue.

b) My original point was that this cut down dramatically on the influence of third parties. It seems we've agreed that it does (since any legislation in a fragmented legislature is going to require the agreement of at least some in the other major party). Since you've come this far with me, can you now see that

i) this disincentivises voting for 3rd parties (they'd be better off not splitting the vote at the polls)

leading to

ii) the two party system the US is locked into

which causes

iii) voter apathy and the lack of an effective voice for minority opinions

[notyoueither]

Of course, Harper's take on Iraq might have been different based on information from CSIS. I kind of wonder what they told Jean about it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yarggghhhh.

Aren't you supposed to be cleaning?

[KrazyHorse]

Um, I seem to recall some of us basing our opinions on common sense and coming out with a pretty realistic view of the "threat" that Saddam posed and also the probable course of the war.

i.e. "is it Lebanon yet?"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Aren't you supposed to be cleaning?

He's driving me insane. I feel like I'm giving a lesson in Parliamentary Democracy 101...

[KrazyHorse]

Anyway, I managed to do a lot in fits and starts. I think I'm going to sleep now.

[notyoueither]

Yes, Krazy, as I pointed out to Aggy, even a busted clock is right twice a day.

Many against GF2 were or would have been against GF1, the Cold War, WW2, etc. They all would have had reasons for it. In this case, the nay sayers were right.

I still wonder what CSIS was telling Chretien.

[KrazyHorse]

GWII was based on a lot less than GWI was. Saddam wasn't invading sovereign nations last March, as I recall. Nor had he been a huge troublemaker as he was during the 80s. He was a minor annoyance. Anybody with eyes could see that. I would have been:

for WWII
for Cold War up to about 1970, and depending on what action we're talking about. NATO defense, yes. Dirty wars with no real point, no.
ambivalent about GWI

I was for the Kosovo war and I think it's one of the finest things the US and NATO have done in recent history. I was for the recent intervention in Haiti. I would have been for anything we could possibly have done in Rwanda and think that doing nothing was one of the most shameful things we've done recently.

[notyoueither]

No. GW2 was not based on as much as GW1 was, but it did boil down to Saddam violating the cease fire. Obviously, opinion was divided on what to do about it, but the US did decide to go in with some support from others.

Again, I wonder what CSIS told Jean, and what effect the same information would have had on Harper. Maybe none, but no one can pretend that situation was not divided in opinions, and saying that 'he would have done x' when we never got to see him make the actual decision seems on a par below what the Liberals have tried already.

Note, the Conservatives are up and the Liberals are down. The Liberals and NDP should keep going. If you really try you could get Harper a majority before this is all said and done.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Tingkai, use your head. You first reported this as Aircraft Carriers. What do you know about it, aside from just about zero?

Read my first post again. I specifically said that these aircraft carriers would carry helicopters (a helicopter is an aircraft by the way).

And yes, we're not getting detailed information and that's the problem. The Conservatives want to spend at least $1 billion and they're not telling us what exactly they want to buy or why we need it. That's not very transparent is it.

Originally posted by notyoueither
If the UN is something we want to support, what will do that? Are frigates and CF-18's effective peace-keepers? Or are boots on the ground needed?

If a ship can get boots on the ground, and support them, how is that not in keeping with Canadian priorities for the military?

We have limited resources. We need to specialise the capabilities of the Forces.

First off, the Forces must be equipped to meet our defensive needs, not the UN. Are helicopter carriers vital to our defence? NO.

Strategic airlift is necessary for the Forces primary mission given the vast area of our nation.

Strategic airlift will get the boots on the ground.

Originally posted by notyoueither
I will admit, I assume that Harper would not do something DND told him was stupid. Call me an optimist.

DND knows all too well what its like to have the politicians making idiotic equipment choices. And it's not just the Liberals mucking around. The Forces are stuck with crappy trucks bought by the Conservatives.

We don't need "hybrid maritime carriers".

[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.

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

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.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/139687p-123976c.html

The 18% minority also controls Senate appointments to the US Supreme Court.

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.

Can we say Tyrrany of the Minority.

And like KH said, other minorities get screwed. In the nine states with a majority of the American populations, Blacks and Hispanics make up 30% of the population. In the 26 states that control the senate, Blacks and Hispanics make up 11% of the population.


Senate stats from What Democracy in the May issue of Harper's.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

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.

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

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.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/139687p-123976c.html

The 18% minority also controls Senate appointments to the US Supreme Court.

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.

Can we say Tyrrany of the Minority.

And like KH said, other minorities get screwed. In the nine states with a majority of the American populations, Blacks and Hispanics make up 30% of the population. In the 26 states that control the senate, Blacks and Hispanics make up 11% of the population.


Senate stats from What Democracy in the May issue of Harper's.

Regardless, Americans are much happier with American Federalism than Canadians are with theirs. And thats what really matters.

Look into the drafting of the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation were dissolved to see the historical precedent for why the US is the way it is. Rogue Island made it possible for little states to not be bullied by big ones, which is something small Canadian provinces lack. My girlfriend and her family are Newfies, and I can tell you, they are PISSED, every one of them over there. Its much the same in most other smaller Canadian provinces.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

which causes

iii) voter apathy and the lack of an effective voice for minority opinions

Yeah, because Canadians aren't apathetic at all.

[KrazyHorse]

Not even close to as much. Rates of voter nonparticipation are significantly lower.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
My girlfriend and her family are Newfies, and I can tell you, they are PISSED, every one of them over there. Its much the same in most other smaller Canadian provinces.

Yeah, Newfoundland has really been screwed by the rest of Canada. God knows they never get a penny from the rest of Canada. No help at all for Newfoundland.