Klein warns Ottawa of separation threat

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
And whatever BC, Alberta and Toronto would vote for would rule the entire nation too. So find a compromise that will be acceptable to those three regions.

This is wonderful.
"If only you guys would compromise!"
Seriously, fantastic stuff.
It's wonderful in the sense of irony, hypocrisy, and downright ridicilous in how irrelevant it is...

Alberta: "The system needs reform!"
Canada: "No, it doesn't! You guys need to compromise, damnit!"

You're the one who's stuck on this semantic difference between the residents of one province and the residents of another.

Look at the voting results. It's not a semantic, it's the reality. If one specific region of the country has enough population, they control the rest of the country, and everyone else becomes expendible. It's a harsh reality... You just may not see it as such when you live in the region.

Stop whining that the current system discriminates against you (which it most certainly does not) and get cracking.

It doesn't discriminate against me. I've never said that.
The problem is the system discriminates against anyone who isn't in Ontario and Quebec in the BigPicture(tm).

Sure, you can list why you think the CA isn't getting a majority government, and I'd agree with most of it, but that's NOT THE POINT. You shouldn't have to be in the majority to have a say in how your country works. Sorry, that's just what I think...

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not sure where you're pulling this. I would never vote CA.

So tell your fellow Albertans to vote PC instead. If they could grab the CA's seats and then combine them with the seats won by the Libs due to vote-splitting then you'd have a viable political force. Until then, realise that it's not the electoral system emasculating the right; it's the right emasculating itself.

[Asher]

"Equal representation" my ass. You're just trying to tell the average voter in Toronto that their vote should entitle them to less representation than some potato farmer in PEI's.

Yes -- in ONE form of the government.

It sure as hell beats telling people in Alberta that their vote should entitle them to ZERO representation in the entire ****ing federal government, doncha think?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
So tell your fellow Albertans to vote PC instead. If they could grab the CA's seats and then combine them with the seats won by the Libs due to vote-splitting then you'd have a viable political force. Until then, realise that it's not the electoral system emasculating the right; it's the right emasculating itself.

That's not how it works. I realize how incredibly ****ing easy for you and Tingkai to tell us how simple it is, simply get everyone in the province to vote for the same party ( ) but surely you're not that silly...

Please tell me you're joking and you're really not insane...

The PC and the CA are not the same party. Telling everyone to vote for one or the other won't work. Sorry.

[Asher]

Isn't it funny that the people saying Alberta should "compromise" are the same people who are refusing to compromise on anything that would ruin their province's iron fist on the nation.

[KrazyHorse]

This is wonderful.
"If only you guys would compromise!"
Seriously, fantastic stuff.
It's wonderful in the sense of irony, hypocrisy, and downright ridicilous in how irrelevant it is...

Alberta: "The system needs reform!"
Canada: "No, it doesn't! You guys need to compromise, damnit!"

You do need to compromise. If Toronto voted as a bloc for a party that nobody else likes they'd get screwed over too. They're too smart to do that, so they compromise. Right now the PCs are in the doghouse, so Toronto votes Liberal. It does this knowing that the Liberals aren't everything they want, but are a damn sight better than having a government composed of the CA or NDP.


The endless infighting by the right wing simply acts to allow the Liberals to win every time. And instead of trying to fix the problem with the right's strategy, you whine that the system discriminates against you.

I vote NDP, and wouldn't vote Liberal unless something major changes. I do this with eyes wide open, knowing that this means my vote will never (except in extraordinary circumstances like a minority government) count to the government. To get me to vote for them they would have to change their platform so dramatically that they'd lose 10 votes on the other side.

Right now all of Alberta is doing the same thing, except they apparently haven't figured out how the system works yet.

I thought you folks were supposed to be good at math to count up all the oil drums...

[Asher]

KrazyHorse...please, stay with the thread topic.
This isn't about voting strategy, and how you and Tingkai have some kind of absurd theory about how easy it is to organize everyone in the province and force them to vote for a party. Clearly you've been dabbling in special herbs, but that's not the point.

The point is, it doesn't matter who Alberta votes for. Alberta votes OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of the CA, it doesn't mean anything. Whoever forms the majority government in Canada controls everything. Everything!

Whoever wins Ontario and Quebec forms the majority government.

That's the issue. Not voting strategies, not specific parties, none of that is relevant to this debate. You and Tingkai always try to make it relevant because you both go off onto ridiculous tirades about vote coordinatation over 3 million people like it's a plausible idea, and like it would change anything.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[Ben Kenobi]

nice signature obiwan

Sava, it almost got me restricted by Ming...

You were right on the money when you said that. It's a great cut&paste reminder to academics who boast of their qualifications.

Frogger:

chauvinist:

Etymology: French chauvinisme, from Nicolas Chauvin, character noted for his excessive patriotism and devotion to Napoleon in Théodore and Hippolyte Cogniard's play La Cocarde tricolore (1831)
Date: 1851
1 : excessive or blind patriotism -- compare JINGOISM
2 : undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged

How do either apply to the CA? The Liberals are also guilty of patronage, of 'undue partiality'.

[Garth Vader]

Ok, you guys keep getting lost in pointless debates.

Is the bottom line: Asher wants the senate to be a check on the power of parliament. Make it elected, and by a different manner than the house seats.

Frogger thinks the senate is useless too, but thinks reform is unecessary.

[Sava]

Sava, it almost got me restricted by Ming...

You were right on the money when you said that. It's a great cut&paste reminder to academics who boast of their qualifications.

Glad to see you fought the power

That's why, for as big of a mouth as I have, I never lose sight of my own ignorance. It's a Socratic philosophy.

[KrazyHorse]

Number 2.

The liberals Run candidates in every single riding in the country, and make a decent showing in all of them (minus, perhaps, some of Alberta's). The CA runs 50 or 60 serious candidates and 240 sacrificial lambs.

The Liberals go where the votes take them, the CA remains, in the eyes of most of this country, an "Alberta first" party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Ok, you guys keep getting lost in pointless debates.

Is the bottom line: Asher wants the senate to be a check on the power of parliament. Make it elected, and by a different manner than the house seats.

Frogger thinks the senate is useless too, but thinks reform is unecessary.

That's a very Quebec attitude, for all of the talk I hear about KH being different than the average Quebeccer.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Ok, you guys keep getting lost in pointless debates.

Is the bottom line: Asher wants the senate to be a check on the power of parliament. Make it elected, and by a different manner than the house seats.

Frogger thinks the senate is useless too, but thinks reform is unecessary.

Nope. I already presented a pretty good, (in my mind) vision for reform of the Senate. It was also supposed to be a check on Commons and was to be elected in a different way than the Commons is. Scroll back to page 5 or 6.

If I had my druthers I'd just toss the Senate and use a unicameral Parliament, but most people don't seem to agree with me so I came up with a plan.

[KrazyHorse]

This isn't about voting strategy, and how you and Tingkai have some kind of absurd theory about how easy it is to organize everyone in the province and force them to vote for a party. Clearly you've been dabbling in special herbs, but that's not the point.

The point is, it doesn't matter who Alberta votes for. Alberta votes OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of the CA, it doesn't mean anything. Whoever forms the majority government in Canada controls everything. Everything!

So your solution is:

1) To have a senate. Check. Got that. Proposed a more competent and effective senate, if you forgot

2) To have this senate be elected. Check. Ditto with above

3) To elect this senate differently than the Commons is elected. Check again. If you schecked my proposal you'd notice that the distribution of seats with a proportional representation system of election would be pretty different than the current distribution of the Commons

4) To elect this senate in a way which favours people living in small provinces at the expense of people living in large provinces. Hold the phone. Not check, nothing at all. Too bad. No way. Uh uh.

[Asher]

4) To elect this senate in a way which favours people living in small provinces at the expense of people living in large provinces. Hold the phone. Not check, nothing at all. Too bad. No way. Uh uh.

So in other words, your "solution" is nothing but a duplicate of the house??

How can it be a check on balance if the same people can control both all the time?

Proportional representation is better than what we have now, but unfortunately would be even more unproductive than an equal senate.