Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Garth Vader]

How is that American? They are going through a huge political fight down here to reform campaign finance and the only issue is what kind of curbs on free speech are acceptable. No one is arguing that Boss Tweed / Mayor Daly style vote buying is acceptable.

Or were you just engaging in some knee-jerk America bashing?

Well the system down there is a LOT more money intensive than it is up here. I am impressed by the attempts to clean the system up, but not at how much those attempts are being resisted.

Plus, I like doing some light America bashing when possible

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Albertans have no one to blame but themselves. If you never vote Liberal, they're not going to pay attention to you.

This is what I'm referring to by the liberal backwards logic:

In order to express dissatisfaction and have something done about the liberal government, you must vote for the liberal government! If you don't vote for them, nothing will happen.

The system needs to be reformed, clearly almost anyone can see that from looking at it. You've said it just here and now in so many words.

And why do you think that if Alberta did vote in liberals into power that the liberals would change what they're doing to please the 3M people in a province that doesn't determine their term in office anyway?

No matter how you work it, in the current system, the only way to get a voice that matters in the system is by having a coalition of smaller provinces or a large province. Alberta is pretty much alone in the conservative position, so that's one small province against all of Canada, and Canada is simply a "majority rules" system right now, so they simply neglect that province. Sad...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Echinda
Jean Chretien is no more accountable than a president. Party discipline reduces question period to a charade. Chretien is as likely to get a non-confidence vote as Bush is to get impeached

At least two governments fell in the 80s. When strong mandates are absent it can and does ocur.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

This is what I'm referring to by the liberal backwards logic:

In order to express dissatisfaction and have something done about the liberal government, you must vote for the liberal government! If you don't vote for them, nothing will happen.

It's called politics 101. If you want stuff done, you have to MPs who will be part of the governing party, or the party most likely to win,

Now the Albertans do this in 84 and 88 and then they shoot themselves in the foot by spliting the right-wing vote with the formation of the Reform Party. Brilliant move.

They're so fanatical about their voting that they won't even try playing the political game that everyone in the world knows how to play.

And when they predictably remain out of power, they complain that the rules are unfair.

All you are saying Asher is change the rules so that the Albertan conservatives are guaranteed to win.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It's called politics 101. If you want stuff done, you have to MPs who will be part of the governing party, or the party most likely to win,

So by your logic we should only have one party then, and then we can always vote for that one party and they'll do what we want. Simply brilliant.

Now the Albertans do this in 84 and 88 and then they shoot themselves in the foot by spliting the right-wing vote with the formation of the Reform Party. Brilliant move.

Albertans didn't exactly get what they wanted in 84 and 88, and it was incredibly stupid to split the right wing up. But you make it sound like it was planned. It comes down to the stupidity of two leaders, not the province.

They're so fanatical about their voting that they won't even try playing the political game that everyone in the world knows how to play.

Errm...in most democracies, the idea is you vote for the party that you feel represents your views. You don't vote for the party who is already winning consistent majority governments and hope they take heart and care about what you want, even if they can afford to lose your votes.

And when they predictably remain out of power, they complain that the rules are unfair.

The Senate is a joke, it's completely and utterly useless, and it is unfair how minority provinces can simply be ignored by the government because they're minorities.

All you are saying Asher is change the rules so that the Albertan conservatives are guaranteed to win.

Where do you pull that out of?
What I'm saying is the senate needs to be changed so there's a fixed number of seats for every province, regardless of population/contribution. This way, the always-dominant Ontario/Quebec don't have complete control over the entire country by themselves, as they seemingly always do in the Executive branch and the House of Commons. The Senate is where you equalize that power with a system of checks and balances, so to speak, so stuff like the NEP doesn't happen. So Chretien can't appoint his liberal cronies to represent Alberta, who never votes liberal federally.

Now, how you work that into "guaranteeing Alberta to win" is beyond me. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Now the Albertans do this in 84 and 88 and then they shoot themselves in the foot by spliting the right-wing vote with the formation of the Reform Party. Brilliant move.

They're so fanatical about their voting that they won't even try playing the political game that everyone in the world knows how to play.

And when they predictably remain out of power, they complain that the rules are unfair.

Unfortunately, you are too right. About Reform / CA / the 12 dissenters.

Not only did they (we) split the right. They then proceeded to split it again! I avoid 'we' because I refuse to support a party that stands the least chance of any this side of the Green Party of ever forming a majority government.

But I disagree that Parliament is constituted in a fair way. The Senate is 'supposed' to be the regional check on the power of the Commons. Unfortunately, it has become the Liberal's check on the power of the Tories whenever they happen to briefly govern.

PS. Apologies for the over-the-top flame. I was laughing to myself while doing it, but it doesn't read too funny now.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
At least two governments fell in the 80s. When strong mandates are absent it can and does ocur.

A little disingenuous, KH. Has there ever been a majority that fell to a non-confidence vote? Chretien, as the leader of a majority, has little to fear from parliament.

[KrazyHorse]

But I disagree that parliament is constituted in a fair way. The Senate is 'supposed' to be the regional check on the power of the Commons. Unfortunately, it has become the Liberal's check on the power of the Tories whenever they happen to briefly govern

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the Tories can't get themselves elected for any significant period of time. They've ruled for a grand total of 21 years since King's first win in 1921, 81 years ago.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Echinda


A little disingenuous, KH. Has there ever been a majority that fell to a non-confidence vote? Chretien, as the leader of a majority, has little to fear from parliament.

That's why I mentioned the lack of a strong mandate as a requirement.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the Tories can't get themselves elected for any significant period of time. They've ruled for a grand total of 21 years since King's first win in 1921, 81 years ago.

So the fact that the Liberals dominate in the Commons justifies the complete farce that the Senate is. Unless of course they are playing kazoos to drum up opposition to a Tory government. Then the CBC likes them.

On another related topic, don't you think that bias in the media might have something to do with the Liberal's domination?

[KrazyHorse]

So the fact that the Liberals dominate in the Commons justifies the complete farce that the Senate is. Unless of course they are playing kazoos to drum up opposition to a Tory government. Then the CBC likes them

No, it doesn't. We have a unicameral legislature, but it doesn't change the fact that if Canadians weren't voting for the Liberals over and over again then the Senate wouldn't be so Liberal-heavy.

On another related topic, don't you think that bias in the media might have something to do with the Liberal's domination?

No. It has something to do with the public will.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by notyoueither
On another related topic, don't you think that bias in the media might have something to do with the Liberal's domination?

No. I think it has more to do with getting the most votes.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and 9 of those 21 years are Mulroney, a Red Tory if there ever was one, and a generally incompetent idiot.

[notyoueither]

Give those two the door prize!

::Smacks them with door::

And the media plays no part in shaping public opinion?

[Nice attempt at a Troll KH. Tingkai got it out of my system]

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And the media plays no part in shaping public opinion?

I don't know. It doesn't seem to have shaped yours or Ashers.