Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


In other words, a party can hope to include people in its caucus that the majority of Canadians view as extremists and still manage to form a government? That wouldn't be democracy as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason the Liberals wouldn't take on Svend Robinson as a candidate. The Conservatives have tried to include the far right in their party. Why should a centrist vote for a party like that?

Ideally, we'd be voting for MPs in each of our ridings, and then the best people suited to each riding would win.

The parties would then hash out who sat where and governments formed, but the governments would still be very much accountable to Parliament.

Right now, we are nowhere near that. So yes, parties include people with very unsavoury characters. The Liberals have a few skeletons they like to brush dirt over to keep buried, but they are there. The NDP more-so, but the NDP is nowhere near power so not much attention is paid to them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It won't die in the West. It sure as hell is going to pay a price in Ontario though.

If the **** sticks. So far harper has been teflon.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The Liberals have done the same with NDP candidates.

Why should a centrist vote for them?

The right wing of the NDP is not as far left as the right wing of the Conservatives is to the right. The fact that the NDP can draw 20% support whereas jokers like the Christian Heritage party draw what, 2-3%? should tell you this.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


If the **** sticks. So far harper has been teflon.

Opinion polls are one thing. Marking an X in the voting booth is another. This will be in the minds of voters on June 28.

[notyoueither]

Under proportional representation, I am fairly sure a Christian right party would poll well over 2%. That would be great, because then Tories could get back more of a centred focus.

In other words, under proportional representation, right now, we would be looking at a PC-Reform alliance with maybe a few CH MPs heading towards a majority government to end too long a spell of Liberals at the trough.

In such an alliance, the PCs would keep the excesses of Reform and CH from breaking important things.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Opinion polls are one thing. Marking an X in the voting booth is another. This will be in the minds of voters on June 28.

They may also be thinking about another 4 years of Liberals and wondering how much we want to come to resemble a banana republic.

Care to bet on which sentiment wins? Scare tactics because 5 or 10% of Tory MPs might be troglodytes, or unbridled and unchecked corruption and incompetence?

I don't want to make that call. It is a tough one.

[KrazyHorse]

Voters scurry to what they know when it comes down to the wire...

And I don't have any more of a crystal ball than you do.

But proportional representation would have given the Liberal and NDP an easy minority government every election since 1993. Fine by me.

[Ben Kenobi]

The right wing of the NDP is not as far left as the right wing of the Conservatives is to the right. The fact that the NDP can draw 20% support whereas jokers like the Christian Heritage party draw what, 2-3%? should tell you this.

20% support? In your dreams.

Secondly, the fact that the NDP draws more support than the Heritage party could simply mean that Canada is a socialist paradise, rather than reflecting on the actual placement of the parties on the political spectrum.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Voters scurry to what they know when it comes down to the wire...

This is Canada. Almost all of us want to see the Liberals take 5 minutes for gross misconduct. How many will settle for 2 minutes and the NDP as referee looking at them closely?

Come on. We all want to see them get serious time in the sin bin.

[Ben Kenobi]

But proportional representation would have given the Liberal and NDP an easy minority government every election since 1993. Fine by me.

NDP in power?

That wouldn't have lasted long.

[KrazyHorse]

In what dreams, sweetheart? If they're not at 20% then they're somewhere between 15-20%.

Secondly, the fact that the NDP draws more support than the Heritage party could simply mean that Canada is a socialist paradise, rather than reflecting on the actual placement of the parties on the political spectrum.

Showing your true colours now, aren't you...

The political spectrum for any country needs to be drawn relative to the population of that country. In the US the NDP would be extremists. Here they're not.

Wishing for the majority of Canadians to agree with your views won't make it so. And complaining that they don't doesn't change the fact that relative to Canada's population you are an extremist. And so am I.

[KrazyHorse]

It's funny, because the ***** in your avatar is considered an extremist even in the US...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
But proportional representation would have given the Liberal and NDP an easy minority government every election since 1993. Fine by me.

Perhaps it would have led to significant increases in Tory support to counteract too much left.

You assume the equilibrium will be maintained through change. Don't count on it. There are as many seriously religious people in this country as there are hard core leftists, maybe more.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


This is Canada. Almost all of us want to see the Liberals take 5 minutes for gross misconduct. How many will settle for 2 minutes and the NDP as referee looking at them closely?

Come on. We all want to see them get serious time in the sin bin.

Not at the cost of seeing the Conservatives on the ice I don't.

[notyoueither]

Yes, but you are not an inhabitant of the centre.