Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, and it can easily be accomplished with 51% total. As a matter of fact, in a two party system it can be accomplished with 26% total, but the odds of that happening defy imagination, as opposed to the odds of my scenario (which you can take my word on are not).

Your scenario is outrageous and has no foundation in reality.

Find me a link about when something remotely close to what you suggest happened.

I'll find you links when something I'm talking about (abusing the minority provinces) has happened. Then we can compare notes and see who's talking out of their ass or not.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

No, if you're doing it by population, the same population in Alberta that is being "screwed over" would be reflected in the senators elected for the region Alberta's in.

Having a regional senate by population is nothing but having larger electoral territories with the same result.

Although it does sound like a phenomenal waste of time and money, I'm not surprised that a left-winger came up with that one.

I don't think you understand, Asher. The entire region votes directly for them, so they need to pay attention to Alberta. Have you been drinking or something?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't think you understand, Asher. The entire region votes directly for them, so they need to pay attention to Alberta. Have you been drinking or something?

A bit.

The entire region votes for them, just as Alberta votes for our house of representative people right now.

Again, how is this any different?

BC won't vote for the same senators Alberta would, so you can't have "The West" together. Incase you forgot, BC has had NDP governements and currently has a Liberal gov't. Ouch.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sigh. Read what I wrote. Control of 26 states plus 51% total national support could easily get you a mjority in all 3 places.

25 of the smallest States (what you originally wrote) quite simply will not get you a majority of either House of Congress, no matter how you wish to spin it. We can through that half of your scenario out right now.

51% total national support will only get you the Presidency depending on which State you get your support from.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm close to the point of telling you to **** off and suck on it, Asher. Notyou and I can both live with the proposition he/we came up with, and there's no way in hell I (or anybody else who would get screwed by skewed vote value) would accept a Senate where the Maritimes get as much as Quebec, the West or Ontario.

Do any of you know what happened to the 17th century Poles because of their parliamentary system that gave each and every nobleman (great and small) a veto?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not the same, because they're elected by the region as a whole. Now if you want to "screw over" Alberta you need to get by the 30% of seats that represent the whole West instead of just the 10% that represent Alta.

Not a bad point.

Only problem is assuming the West is one monolithic region with identical interests. It's not. The coast of BC is different from the interior, which is again different from Northern Alberta, which again is slightly different from Southern Alberta, which differs significantly with Saskatchewan, which varies from Southern Manitoba, which vears a bit more when you arrive at Northern Manitoba. Let's not even go into the territories.

You'r discussing 50% plus of the land mass of Canada with soon to be 50% of the population as if it were all one monolithic place. It's not. It has as much variety as the other half of Canada.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

A bit.

The entire region votes for them, just as Alberta votes for our house of representative people right now.

Again, how is this any different?

BC won't vote for the same senators Alberta would, so you can't have "The West" together. Incase you forgot, BC has had NDP governements and currently has a Liberal gov't. Ouch.

And? Even if we had a Senate that gave every province 10 seats Alberta could still easily get "screwed over" by the rest of the country. The only solution must be to give your provincial legislature a veto on every bill.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm close to the point of telling you to **** off and suck on it, Asher.

Go for it, that's what Chretien's government has been doing to Alberta ever since they got into power.

Notyou and I can both live with the proposition he/we came up with, and there's no way in hell I (or anybody else who would get screwed by skewed vote value) would accept a Senate where the Maritimes get as much as Quebec, the West or Ontario.

There's no way in hell I'm going to have Quebec and Ontario have power to enact something like the NEP again.

You have a problem with it because you're used to getting what you want politically. Quebec is the biggest b*tch of the country. They piss and moan and piss and moan and the government throws money at them to keep happy. Why? Because they've got enough voters to matter in the grand scheme of things.

Provinces like Alberta are politically so far off from the rest of Canada that the federal government finds it useless politically. So what do they do? They take advantage of it. Like Trudeau did with the NEP (The NEP makes for such a fine example, doesn't it?)

Do any of you know what happened to the 17th century Poles because of their parliamentary system that gave each and every nobleman (great and small) a veto?

This is different.
How is my scenerio different?
Mine's been proven to work, as it has in the States.
The system in Canada has proven to not work.

Only a Frenchman would continually argue to keep a broken system.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


25 of the smallest States (what you originally wrote) quite simply will not get you a majority of either House of Congress, no matter how you wish to spin it. We can through that half of your scenario out right now.

51% total national support will only get you the Presidency depending on which State you get your support from.

Dino, I'm really going to have to ask you to stop either

a) Misreading what I write
or
b) Deliberately misrepresenting what I write

[KrazyHorse]

Only a Frenchman would continually argue to keep a broken system

Yes. A Frenchman who's more than half English, was raised in English, was educated in English and speaks French with an English accent.

Only a redneck could be such a moron.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes. A Frenchman who's more than half English, was raised in English, was educated in English and speaks French with an English accent.

Maybe living there, the attitude just rubbed off on you.

Only a redneck could be such a moron.

And you're an admitted French Redneck. How nice.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not a bad point.

Only problem is assuming the West is one monolithic region with identical interests. It's not. The coast of BC is different from the interior, which is again different from Northern Alberta, which again is slightly different from Southern Alberta, which differs significantly with Saskatchewan, which varies from Southern Manitoba, which vears a bit more when you arrive at Northern Manitoba. Let's not even go into the territories.

You'r discussing 50% plus of the land mass of Canada with soon to be 50% of the population as if it were all one monolithic place. It's not. It has as much variety as the other half of Canada.

I know that, but it's as far as you can go inside a single country while still keeping democratic fundamentals.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
And you're an admitted French Redneck. How nice.

It's a good thing my statement didn't carry a double implication inside it.

[Asher]

Let me summarize this thread for people just joining:

KH is happy with how the system is, as his province gets what he wants since it's a "majority" province. He rejects reasoning otherwise based upon far-fetched scenarios that exist only in his mind and not reality.

I am not happy with how the system as, as my province doesn't get what it wants (fair enough), but has been historically exploited by the rest of Canada because of the smaller population (not fair). I propose reforming the senate close to a US-style senate to counter abuse from "majority" provinces. I have an entire country's history of proof that it works.

Did I miss anything?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, the facts and actual arguments I've been using seem to be conspicuously absent.