Klein warns Ottawa of separation threat

[KrazyHorse]

Because those small provinces are a minority. Surely you must agree that it's not fair to have two provinces where your vote counts (Ontario, Quebec) and all of the other provinces are constantly along for the ride?

This makes no sense. Why do you think any politician worth his salt would care more about winning a seat in Quebec or Ontario than he would about winning a seat in BC or Alberta?

Chrétien would be just as happy to win seats anywhere in Canada.

Yeah, that's much worse than having the federal government do the same thing to you. Tell me, what has the Quebec provincial government done on the scale of the NEP?

Did Trudeau tell Albertans that they weren't actually Canadians and were living here on sufferance?

Hah. Let's see: school closures that target English school boards, ditto with hospital closures, the abrogation of our right to free speech...

As compared to regulations on the oil industry.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger

House of Commons and Executive branch

The executive branch isn't a body, and it's composed entirely of those whom the PM selects. In Canadian political structure it's an extension of the legislature. Try not to apply American political theory to Canadian politics...

I realize that, but the PM and his cabinet are effectively their own branch.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
This makes no sense. Why do you think any politician worth his salt would care more about winning a seat in Quebec or Ontario than he would about winning a seat in BC or Alberta?

Chrétien would be just as happy to win seats anywhere in Canada.

Are you intentionally being obtuse about this?
Alberta is expendable vote wise. That's why the Liberals didn't even bother to campaign here last election.

Of course Chretien would be happy to win seats anywhere, but realistically all he needs is Ontario/Quebec support and the odd seat anywhere else. That's what he gets, and that gives him control over the entire country even though 40% of the popular vote was for him...

Did Trudeau tell Albertans that they weren't actually Canadians and were living here on sufferance?

I don't think so, but I wouldn't care either way. In fact I may think highly of him for having cajones if he did that.

As compared to regulations on the oil industry.

You compared some school closures to the NEP, and dismissed the NEP like it was nothing.

Man, people wonder why Alberta is upset with the rest of the country. Clueless...

[KrazyHorse]

Especially regulations which were repealed after 5 years because the Albertans finally managed to get their act together and compromise enough to elect Mulroney...

[KrazyHorse]

Of course Chretien would be happy to win seats anywhere, but realistically all he needs is Ontario/Quebec support and the odd seat anywhere else. That's what he gets, and that gives him control over the entire country even though 40% of the popular vote was for him...

Fine. Let's split up Ontario into 3 provinces sweetheart. Would that make things more palatable to you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Fine. Let's split up Ontario into 3 provinces sweetheart. Would that make things more palatable to you?

I'm really not sure if you're joking around about completely missing the point, or if you're being serious...

I don't care about the semantics of provincial boundaries, I care about political clout. People in central Canada freely dictate what the people in eastern and western Canada have to do. It's true that the majority of people live in central Canada, but does that mean everyone else doesn't count?

[KrazyHorse]

I don't care about the semantics of provincial boundaries, I care about political clout. People in central Canada freely dictate what the people in eastern and western Canada have to do. It's true that the majority of people live in central Canada, but does that mean everyone else doesn't count?

Your "Central Canada" is as much a semantic construct as the provincial boundary is. If you think that the average Montrealer, the average Torontonian, the average rural Quebecer, the average non-Toronto Ontario industrial urbanite, and the average rural Ontarian all have the same concerns then you're off the deep end.

The fact is that what the Liberal party has done is find an effective compromise between 4 of those 5 political viewpoints, in addition to getting a lot of individual seats in other provinces.

Alberta as a political bloc has failed to compromise enough to field a credible collection of political blocs. Due to its size Alberta only represents 1 basic viewpoint. This cuts both ways; if Alberta was bigger it would have more of a voice, but most likely it would also present a more varied voice.

Right now all you're saying is that you aren't willing to compromise, and then you're complaining that nobody else wants to vote for the party which stands for, in most people's minds "Alberta first"

Ontarians don't vote for the BQ for a very good reason: because it's called the BQ. The CA is only slightly less chauvinist in its viewpoint, and has only slightly more of a non-albertan following.

[Garth Vader]

What is provincial politics like in Alberta?

I assume the vast majority of the seats are in Calgary and Edmonton. So do your rural voters complain about their voice being ignored?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
What is provincial politics like in Alberta?

I assume the vast majority of the seats are in Calgary and Edmonton. So do your rural voters complain about their voice being ignored?

The people in rural Alberta have more say per person than those in Urban Alberta.

It doesn't really matter, though, they all vote for Klein too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Your "Central Canada" is as much a semantic construct as the provincial boundary is. If you think that the average Montrealer, the average Torontonian, the average rural Quebecer, the average non-Toronto Ontario industrial urbanite, and the average rural Ontarian all have the same concerns then you're off the deep end.

This is, again, more needless semantics. Of course not everyone in central Canada votes the same way. It doesn't matter, though, in this system. Whatever they collectively vote for rules the entire nation.

Due to its size Alberta only represents 1 basic viewpoint. This cuts both ways; if Alberta was bigger it would have more of a voice, but most likely it would also present a more varied voice.

The Liberals get lots of votes from Alberta, the problem is there's almost always more CA/PC votes in the same riding which renders the Liberal votes useless.

Right now all you're saying is that you aren't willing to compromise

Where am I saying that at all? If I remember correctly, I'm the one offering a compromise with only a minor part of the government formed by equal representation, and you're the one shouting "No no no no" and wanting strictly first past the post representation...

and then you're complaining that nobody else wants to vote for the party which stands for, in most people's minds "Alberta first"

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

[Ben Kenobi]

You should have gotten PEI's lawyers.

-Frogger

Cutting the CPR is a symbolic gesture of distaste to the West, like Trudeau's finger.

I don't think so, but I wouldn't care either way. In fact I may think highly of him for having cajones if he did that.

Asher! I can't believe you forgot Trudeau's finger!

The CA is only slightly less chauvinist in its viewpoint, and has only slightly more of a non-albertan following.

How is the CA 'chauvinist?'

They run more female candidate than our benighted Liberal party.

[KrazyHorse]

This is, again, more needless semantics. Of course not everyone in central Canada votes the same way. It doesn't matter, though, in this system. Whatever they collectively vote for rules the entire nation.

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.

"Central Canada" has been willing to compromise on what party they vote for. The Liberals have accepted everybody from Paul Marin on the right to Alan Rock on the left, and put a platform forward which is acceptable to a broad range of people.

You're the one who's stuck on this semantic difference between the residents of one province and the residents of another. If the CA put forward a platform that was more palatable to Montreal than the Liberal's platform was, then Montreal would vote CA. You've got to piece together a coalition of regional interests the way the Liberals have done.

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

The current system discriminates against extremism. Period. And right now, the CA is extremist in terms of the Canadian electorate. So is the NDP.

[Sava]

nice signature obiwan

Anyways, I'm just a dumbass American who doesn't know (or care) about Canadian politics.

My only comment is:
Any civil war in Canada would probably have more yellow snowballs than bullets.

[KrazyHorse]

Where am I saying that at all? If I remember correctly, I'm the one offering a compromise with only a minor part of the government formed by equal representation, and you're the one shouting "No no no no" and wanting strictly first past the post representation...

"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.

[KrazyHorse]

How is the CA 'chauvinist?'

They run more female candidate than our benighted Liberal party.

Look up the word chauvinist in a dictionary. Just because most people use it in conjunction with "male" doesn't mean that that's the only meaning.