Where Do U Stand

[Biggie]

dont take this the wrong way but i think thats being naive. say there's a good conservative that can help your riding. But that means voting for harper as well. a harper victory means the subsequent erasing of the border between Canada and the US. Dont believe me, check out NAFTA PLUS. a good website to check would be vivelecanada.ca

This is why the Westminster parliamentary system is a really bad type of government.

 

Oh, and the Liberal Party has done far more to erase the border between Canada and the US in the past 50 years than the Tories.

[rmak]

granted. chretien has done awful things with regards to that. But it was the tory Brian Mulroney who created NAFTA.

 

and the greens and NDP are the only ones willing to change the old parliamentary system with proportional representation.

 

the past 50 years! no way. You're telling me Trudeau and Pearson were pro-integration with the states?! Yeah right

Edited January 7, 2005 by rmak

[Biggie]

granted. chretien has done awful things with regards to that. But it was the tory Brian Mulroney who created NAFTA.

 

and the greens and NDP are the only ones willing to change the old parliamentary system with proportional representation.

I'd rather have a parliamentary democracy over proportional representation. With a PR system, there is absolutely no way to vote for an individual. You simply vote for a party, and the party selects from its own list who will represent the people. What I believe is the ideal is the American republic style, where you vote directly for an individual to represent you in the House or Senate, regardless of what their party is. I utterly hate political parties, and I find that in Canada, MPs stick to party lines far too often instead of representing their riding's interests, since the government is dependent upon the confidence of the House.

 

the past 50 years! no way. You're telling me Trudeau and Pearson were pro-integration with the states?! Yeah right

 

Yeah, I am. Which prime minister allowed American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil? Pearson. Which prime minister cozied up with American business elites? Pearson. Dief and the Tories were the nationalists. I highy recommend the book Lament for a Nation by George Grant, if you haven't already read it. It's a fairly quick and easy read if you know a bit of Canadian history.

[rmak]

american presidents hated pearson and trudeau. Johnson even grabbed pearson, became violent with him over Vietnam because Lester would not support that war.

Edited January 7, 2005 by rmak

[Matt]

I don't like the U.S. system, George W. Bush won the U.S. election in 2000 without the popular vote.

[rmak]

the Canadian and US systems are both out of date. time to wake up and smell the proportional rep

[Matt]

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Unless when the system helped elect Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler was considered the system "working". It's easy for individuals to take advantage of Proportional Representation, because it's that much more difficult to have anything pass, thus problems are rarely fixed. Deals that sometimes go against a party's beliefs have to be made even. People become fed-up, and start looking to the extremes when they feel "worked over", which at this point, the breeding ground is satisfactory for extremists to have their way with the government. The whole well it works in Germany now example isn't really all that valid because Germany has a mix between proportional representation, and our system of government.

[Biggie]

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Unless when the system helped elect Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler was considered the system "working". It's easy for individuals to take advantage of Proportional Representation, because it's that much more difficult to have anything pass, thus problems are rarely fixed. Deals that sometimes go against a party's beliefs have to be made even. People become fed-up, and start looking to the extremes when they feel "worked over", which at this point, the breeding ground is satisfactory for extremists to have their way with the government. The whole well it works in Germany now example isn't really all that valid because Germany has a mix between proportional representation, and our system of government.

Plus, Germany has outlawed far-right parties to a certain degree, hasn't it?

 

 

I don't like the U.S. system, George W. Bush won the U.S. election in 2000 without the popular vote.

 

And Matt, I don't like the Electoral College either. I was referring in my post more to the election of Congresspeople and Senators, where the election of the executive is totally separate. In Canada, when you vote for your representative in the House of Commons, you're also throwing your vote behind the executive (PM).

 

I know many Americans who voted for a Republican for Senate and a Democrat for Pres. This isn't possible in Canada.

[Matt]

I don't like the system period. People are most likely to stick with their party unless their party does something they disagree with anyways. Take Scott Brison, for example, he's a former Progresive Conservative until the 2004 election. He didn't like the idea of the P.C./Alliance merger so a week before Martin became P.M. he joined the Liberals. His riding was a Conservative riding and had been for many years, so it might not have been the smartest move, had he not been re-elected as a Liberal. But it was done to stay in a mid-centric party as he has said in the past. Other Alliance and P.C. members did switch too this last election. People do switch, even a Liberal or two did not too long ago. Party lines only make a difference, I think, when the candidate supports them. Since, the leader of the party makes the policy, and the M.P.s can choose to follow it or not.

[Biggie]

It's better than what we have, because you vote for a person who is able to express their own personal ideas and beliefs, as opposed to Canada, where you vote for someone who really needs to stick close to the party platform or the government will fall.

[Matt]

I prefer voting for the party. It's better because you have one vote in a sense to decide who controls the government...

[Biggie]

I personally would rather vote for an independent person. I don't believe political parties exist to serve people's interests, but rather their own.

[calgarydave]

I dunno about you guys but I stand on a chair ;)

 

Okay all joking aside the big problem with canadian politics the "Totting the party line". The idea that the MPs have to vote the way the leader decides is arcahic. What we need to do is change the system so that if the leading party fails to pass a reading that a vote of non confidance is call automatically. There should be some other system where in if the Speaker of the house, and a majority of HOC decides so, one would be held.

 

Also we're in dire need of senate reform.

[saturnine]

i voted for perot

[calgarydave]

i voted for perot

I remember the first time he ran, I saw a politically cartoon, with teh three candiate (sorry cant remember thier names)

 

but the republican was saying "I stand on my record"

The democrat was saying "I stand on my morals"

 

Then had perot standing on a pile of cash

[Biggie]

i voted for perot

I remember the first time he ran, I saw a politically cartoon, with teh three candiate (sorry cant remember thier names)

 

but the republican was saying "I stand on my record"

The democrat was saying "I stand on my morals"

 

Then had perot standing on a pile of cash

;)

 

It was Bush and Clinton, and they all had piles of cash under them.

[rmak]

Proportional Representation didnt elect Hitler and Mussolini, the people did b/c they were popular in their countries until they started showing their true colours

[Biggie]

Proportional Representation didnt elect Hitler and Mussolini, the people did b/c they were popular in their countries until they started showing their true colours

It's still a shit system.

[Matt]

Proportional Representation didnt elect Hitler and Mussolini, the people did b/c they were popular in their countries until they started showing their true colours

Actually it did elect those two. Had they had to have a system where people could run without the support of those parties, the other parties would have, which made the facist parties stronger, and appeared like they could solve all the problems.

[Ruettiger]

I dont know what id vote. I would always vote conservative provincially (in Alberta) because they keep the federal govt from fucking us over as they are always trying to. Theyre not perfect, but far superior to any other party running in Alberta.

 

But, i dont know how good they would be federally, so i can't say i'd vote for them for sure. I do know for a fact i will never ever ever ever vote liberal.

In summary: undecided.

Pretty much that. I don't like NDP becuase to me, they're just a fancy string of words that mean "fascist". Not a big fan of the green party either. The BLOC party isn't good, all they want to do is make Quebec alone, cancel all their debts but still use our money. Meh.

 

Proportional Representation didnt elect Hitler and Mussolini, the people did b/c they were popular in their countries until they started showing their true colours

 

Actually both of their parties were voted or allowed in by wgat's called 'crisis theory'. Both countries were economically unstable after WWI, thus leading the public into a panick. The fascist government looked glorious in comparison to what was controlling them at the time. In Germany, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor and everyone loved him. After Hindenburg had died, Hitler had set fire to the reichstag, blamed it on the commies, and started the 'enabling act' which gave him total control. That's how he got into power. Mussolini was given total control for a year by King Victor Emmanuel III, as Italy was not in good shape. Mussolini took control for over that year his fascist government until I think it was 1943...anyway, that's totally off topic. Damn studying for social exams. Hope you learned something..?

Edited January 9, 2005 by Yasa

[pearanoid]

I'm still standing by my thought of voting for the person who you want to represent you. But of course it's not that simple. I don't want a conservative government, so even if the Conservative candidate in my riding it great, it's still going to take a lot to get me to vote for him/her. Chances are that if they're representing a party who's values don't match mine, then I'm not going to vote that way.

 

But I think voting for the person who's really going to represent you could work. Even if it's a person who's party seems bad, but they want to bring change to the party, that could still be a good thing.

 

Although in the end it's still politics and it's still going to take a lot to change things.

[Matt]

I dont know what id vote. I would always vote conservative provincially (in Alberta) because they keep the federal govt from fucking us over as they are always trying to. Theyre not perfect, but far superior to any other party running in Alberta.

 

But, i dont know how good they would be federally, so i can't say i'd vote for them for sure. I do know for a fact i will never ever ever ever vote liberal.

In summary: undecided.

Pretty much that. I don't like NDP becuase to me, they're just a fancy string of words that mean "fascist". Not a big fan of the green party either. The BLOC party isn't good, all they want to do is make Quebec alone, cancel all their debts but still use our money. Meh.

 

Proportional Representation didnt elect Hitler and Mussolini, the people did b/c they were popular in their countries until they started showing their true colours

 

Actually both of their parties were voted or allowed in by wgat's called 'crisis theory'. Both countries were economically unstable after WWI, thus leading the public into a panick. The fascist government looked glorious in comparison to what was controlling them at the time. In Germany, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor and everyone loved him. After Hindenburg had died, Hitler had set fire to the reichstag, blamed it on the commies, and started the 'enabling act' which gave him total control. That's how he got into power. Mussolini was given total control for a year by King Victor Emmanuel III, as Italy was not in good shape. Mussolini took control for over that year his fascist government until I think it was 1943...anyway, that's totally off topic. Damn studying for social exams. Hope you learned something..?

Your facts are pretty much correct except for who Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on. The guy was Polish actually, it was just coincedental that he was a communist as well.

[rmak]

"ndp is fascist" i do not understand that logic

[Ruettiger]

"ndp is fascist" i do not understand that logic

Everything I've read about them gives me the notion that they're main goal is to centralize everything and elminate private ownership of resource based companies and such. Same line as what the liberal party is trying to do. Oh well. More than 90% of the time my facts aren't right and I look dumb, but I don't care.

[rmak]

how about them marxist - leninists? any commies here.