Western Separation

[Ravenous Yam]

Article

 

More than 1/3 of people in the western provinces are considering separation from Canada (poll). Albertans had the highest support for separation with 42%. 64% of westerners think Martin has done a poor job of addressing western alienation (which he did promise to do when he became PM). And still he doesnt even comment on this immense and obvious problem.

 

And, unlike the Quebec 1995 separation referendum, the poll options were clear and direct, expressly using the phrase 'separation from Canada'. The support is even roughly the same as the Quebec referendum results.

 

I, for one, am actually for it (although i didnt think i would be). None of the western provinces have any kind of voice in the federal govt whatsoever, and are constantly being ignored and taken advantage of by the clearly eastern-dominated federal govt. This isnt even new. Remember the NEP?

 

Anyway, what's everyone's thoughts on this? Whether you're for or against western separation, you have to admit that this is a HUGE problem facing Canada and those federal Liberal fucksticks had better get their act together and deal with this. Support is growing here, and separation may be becoming imminent. And before you say that it can never happen, you have to consider that that is how countries are made, how theyve ALWAYS been made - by one regional or ethnic group removing themselves from a govt 4000km away that they have no say whatsoever in and is constantly either obstructing and taking advantage of them, or ignoring them outright (not to mention the blatant corruption in the Liberal Party that nobody in the East seems to want to face).

 

Thoughts?

[supercanuk]

When i was 16 ( almost 4 years ago now) and i was in Brittish Columbia, they were talking about it in Alberta and B.C. i think its going to become an issue in Canadian politics probably within the decade.

[Dan #2]

Eastern dominated? what the hell are you talking about? The maritimes get the shit end of every stick, unless you fly the flag upside down, or whatever that was that Danny Williams was doing.

 

One thing that no one seems to notice is that smaller countries can be better sometimes. You cannot please 30 million people. No country lasts forever, and as much as i imagine that it would suck, Canada is pretty much destined to fall apart. I don't know why we;d think it would last forever.

[sockcrotch]

Eastern dominated? what the hell are you talking about? The maritimes get the shit end of every stick, unless you fly the flag upside down, or whatever that was that Danny Williams was doing.

I think (although I may be wrong) that when Chris said 'eastern dominated' he meant the central east, as in Ontario. I usually use the same tag when talking about political domination and, instead, label the maritimes as... The Maritimes or maybe the atlantic provinces.

[Dan #2]

Yeah, you're probably right.

[rmak]

all talk. there will never be seperation of any kind in this country. when people fuss and moan its just cuz they want attention and they'll get it eventually. Quebec is getting all the attention they need right now (case in point the appointment of Jean as Governor General). So don't worry westerners, you'll get what you rightfully deserve soon enough.

[Ravenous Yam]

I think (although I may be wrong) that when Chris said 'eastern dominated' he meant the central east, as in Ontario. I usually use the same tag when talking about political domination and, instead, label the maritimes as... The Maritimes or maybe the atlantic provinces.

Yeah that is what i meant. I do usually refer to the Maritimes as the Maritimes. Sorry for the confusion.

Although it could be argued that the Maritimes do contribute to the Eastern domination in that Ontario somewhat 'buys them off' with the transfer payments and other things like that - the Maritimes do consistently vote the Liberals in time and time again.

The Maritimes all have lousy economies, and huge unemployment (if you don't have to do any work other than fish for part of the year, why would you? [note: i am aware this is a huge generalization]).

If the Maritimes were independent financially, it would be almost 3rd world (economically).

 

And one of the reasons the Western provinces keep voting in the Conservatives is because theyre the only party that gives a shit about this entire half of the country.

 

 

And its true that countries of this size really cant last. It's supposed to be a federation (provinces have more power than the federal government). Anyplace else in the world besides North America, Canada would be (at least) 10 different countries. Look at Europe. 50 independent countries, in an area smaller than Canada. It's just because there's really no history here. Everyone moved here, pretty recently (except the natives, of course). It hasn't had time to develop the regional differences that divide the rest of the world. But it will be a big problem soon.

[sockcrotch]

What does it mean if they're darker/lighter?

[Bizud]

I'd really question that survey's results, as those numbers are absolutely unprecedented and the Western Standard probably had them ask some really biased question. I mean, sure I'd "consider" the idea of an independent BC.

 

Proportional representation is the answer.

 

Regionalized politics in this country is basically a big myth. In only one of the four Western provinces (guess which one) did the Conservatives get more than half of the vote.

 

Take Alberta, for example. Yeah, the Cons swept Alberta - 26 out of 28 seats - but only got 60% of the vote. The Liberals got about 20% - not an insignificant number - and elected only two MPs, while the NDP got almost 10% and elected no one. Similarly, the Greens got 6% and elected no one.

 

Next example, BC. Conservative stronghold? Hardly. They got 36 percent of the vote and elected 22 MPs. The Liberals got almost as many votes - 28% - but only elected 8 MPs, and the NDP, with 26%, elected only 5 members. The Greens, again, got six percent of the vote and didn't elect a single member.

 

And so on and so on. In Ontario, the Conservatives got almost a third of the vote and less than a quarter of the seats. They got over 8% of the vote in Quebec - that's actually a lot of votes, even though "8%" doesn't sound like much - and no seats.

 

The problem is that we have a voting system that exacerbates regional differences and gives big rewards within a given region to whichever party is strongest within that region. The Liberals got almost three-quarters of the seats in Ontario, but they didn't even get half of the votes in that province. Ontario is called a "Liberal stronhold" because most of the MPs from Ontario are Liberals, but the majority of Ontarians don't vote Liberal. In the 1993 election, Reform and the Progressive Conservatives got almost the same percentage of the votes, but Reform elected 52 members while the PCs were reduced to 2. There are plenty of examples like this. What it leads to is regionalization, since a party can get the most "bang for its buck" - i.e. get the most seats out of its votes - if those votes are concentrated in a given region. That's how the Bloc get 54 seats, about two-thirds of the seats in Quebec, with less than half of the votes in Quebec.

 

The solution is to switch to a voting system where a party's number of seats in the house matches its share of the popular vote. Such systems are used across the world are are actually more common than our first-past-the-post system (which is mostly limited to former British colonies). I've described what form I think the system should take in other threads (most recently "Sample Mixed Member Proportional model for Canada") The alternatives are either break up the country or suffer permanently regionalized politics, as in India (which uses the same electoral system as we do, and has more political parties in its parliament than any other country in the world due to the regionalized nature of Indian politics).

[ecnarf]

Why are Canadian politics dominated by Ontario?

 

We have the largest population. And, truth be told, we are actually underrepresented in the House of Commons on a per capita basis.

[Bizud]

If we didn't use an antiquated voting system Ontario's dominance would be greatly lessened. The Liberals focus on Ontario because they know that all they need is about half the votes there to give them the vast majority of the seats. Then a bunch in Quebec (unless the Bloc are having a good day), a few in the Maritimes (now that the PCs are gone), and a few in the west, and bingo - a third of the votes equals 100% of the power.

 

Also, as far as federations go, Canada is probably the most decentralized one I can think of.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Bizud

[ecnarf]

Unless I've got my definitions mixed up, a confederation is a weak association of strong states, and a federation is a strong association of weak states. For example, Russia is a federation, but the United States (at its birth, at any rate) was a confederation. So I'm just a little bit confused at calling Canada a federation, even though we "confederated" in 1867. Hmm.

 

I'm also not sure that proportional representation will end Ontario's dominance. It would end the liberal's dominance, for sure, but since Ontario still has a huge population compared to the rest of the country, the population of Ontario would make up a considerable amount of the representation in the House of Commons. Although since it would break up the way in which one party manages to gain a large amount of the seats without a large amount of the popular vote (as the liberals often do in Ontario), it would definitely lessen the gain of the goldmine that are Ontario ridings.

[Dan #2]

I find it interesting how the Maritimes tend to vote Liberal in federal elections, but Conservative in Provincial.

[Ravenous Yam]

Bizud really knows what he's talking about.

 

I also advocated a proportional representation system rather than SMPS in an argument we had in my social studies class last year. SMPS unbalances politics to an absurd extent.

 

And i may have gotten confused on the federation/confederation issue there. Now that you bring it up, i really dont remember which is which.

 

Oh and the specific wording of the separation poll was, "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country." I think the only way it will ever (and should ever) happen is if, regardless of whatever the Western provinces do to try and get their voice in, power stays entirely centralized in Ontario and the East and (we) just keep getting ignored and shut out of Federal politics.

 

I think what we really need is a completely new party. All the parties are just a little too corrupt/crazy/incompetent for me. The fact that AdScam didn't do a thing to shake Eastern support of the Liberals really kinda scares me.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Politicians only care about Ontario and Quebec. After those votes are counted the West can go to sleep. Thats pretty sad.

 

I've known about the threat of Western Separation for some time. They are really PO'd that they get crapped on out there. They geographically quite far from the centre of the Canadian universe (ie: Ontario and Quebec, and Ottawa of course). And power-wise they have little clout. Very unfortunate and i feel bad for them. We have such a dirty country politically.

 

I have an aunt & uncle + cousins who live in B.C., and they say its much more "American" out there than a feeling of being Canadian. I can't really blame B.C. and Alberta. They are alienated, plus they are much more conservative-minded than Ontario/Quebec so they are politically shut-out federally.

 

I really hope they don't separate, and don't think its likely. Quebec will go way before western Canada. Its just dirty politics. Its not like Canadians themselves don't appreciate westerners. I think Westerners would be suprised at how many people in my area think like most of them do. ie: tired of Liberal B.S., and a conservative movement.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[Bizud]

I think what we really need is a completely new party. All the parties are just a little too corrupt/crazy/incompetent for me. The fact that AdScam didn't do a thing to shake Eastern support of the Liberals really kinda scares me.

 

It did, actually, the Conservatives were ahead of the Liberals in the polls in Ontario for a while. Of course, then people realized that the Conservatives are absolute lunatics, and things more or less returned to normal outside of Quebec (where AdScam really hurt them, and where the Bloc, as the only non-Liberal party that people are comfortable voting for, retain a considerable lead in the polls, about 50% to the Liberals' 26% I think). Even in the West, support for the Liberals is basically what it was before the election. The fact is that neither of the other parties have been able to position themselves as a credible alternative. Harper is a laughing stock, and while Layton has been able to take the NDP back to the levels of support they enjoyed before the 90's and position them as the overwhelming second choice for voters both Liberal and Conservative, he hasn't been able to take them past 20% in the polls because he just doesn't sound genuine (he's no Ed Broadbent).

[rmak]

Bizud has got some solid points there

[Moonlight_Graham]

Those are his nipples.

 

(j/k bizud, couldn't resist)

[Bizud]

;)

 

In any case, if we (the West) want to become an economic colony of the United States even faster, then yeah, why not separate? :angry:

[Matt]

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Quite frankly it won't un-balance politics in those country, both Quebec, and Ontario have large populations, so it's not unlikely the Liberals can continue to take plenty of seats from there.

 

Also the Liberals had only like five seats in B.C. in 2000 and 8 after the 2004 election. And the Liberals are gaining in support in B.C. The main factor is B.C.ers are starting to feel alienated by the Conservatives, the main reason is they feel Stephen Harper is spending too much time in Quebec and not enough in B.C. This is leaving votes being picked up by the N.D.P. and the Liberals.

 

The N.D.P. is not really more credible with many voters, some people feel his business policies would be terrible for Canada. The concern for that would be be that then there would be less money for his social programs. What Jack Layton managed to capture some more of the youth vote, which is typical for the N.D.P. really.

[Dan #2]

The fact that AdScam didn't do a thing to shake Eastern support of the Liberals really kinda scares me.

Well, in the EAST, i know there was, and still is a lot of anger. I can't speak for CENTRAL canada.

[ecnarf]

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Quite frankly it won't un-balance politics in those country, both Quebec, and Ontario have large populations, so it's not unlikely the Liberals can continue to take plenty of seats from there.

 

Also the Liberals had only like five seats in B.C. in 2000 and 8 after the 2004 election. And the Liberals are gaining in support in B.C. The main factor is B.C.ers are starting to feel alienated by the Conservatives, the main reason is they feel Stephen Harper is spending too much time in Quebec and not enough in B.C. This is leaving votes being picked up by the N.D.P. and the Liberals.

 

The N.D.P. is not really more credible with many voters, some people feel his business policies would be terrible for Canada. The concern for that would be be that then there would be less money for his social programs. What Jack Layton managed to capture some more of the youth vote, which is typical for the N.D.P. really.

When are you going to learn?

 

You're an idiot.

 

Proportional representation means that the representation in the House of Commons EQUALS the number of votes they got nationwide.

 

Right now, the representation in the house of commons DOES NOT EQUAL the number of votes parties got nationwide.

[Bizud]

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Quite frankly it won't un-balance politics in those country, both Quebec, and Ontario have large populations, so it's not unlikely the Liberals can continue to take plenty of seats from there.

 

Also the Liberals had only like five seats in B.C. in 2000 and 8 after the 2004 election. And the Liberals are gaining in support in B.C. The main factor is B.C.ers are starting to feel alienated by the Conservatives, the main reason is they feel Stephen Harper is spending too much time in Quebec and not enough in B.C. This is leaving votes being picked up by the N.D.P. and the Liberals.

 

The N.D.P. is not really more credible with many voters, some people feel his business policies would be terrible for Canada. The concern for that would be be that then there would be less money for his social programs. What Jack Layton managed to capture some more of the youth vote, which is typical for the N.D.P. really.

 

Jack Layton also has the highest approval rating of any of the leaders, and the NDP are far and away the second choice for the vast majority of Liberal voters and a considerable minority of Conservative voters. Many people don't vote for them because they feel they'd be wasting their vote, which is another reason many people don't vote Green (which makes it all the more impressive that the Greens managed to get over half a million votes - votes that elected no one). But you're an idiot. Let's go through this one more time:

 

If seats matched votes, the Liberals wouldn't sweep Ontario. In the last election they got less than half of the votes in Ontario. Under any sort of PR system, that'd be like 44 seats. The Conservatives would get more than 30 seats, I think, there'd be almost that many for the NDP, and even a few for the Greens. Green and NDP voters could also feel secure in the knowledge that their vote would not be wasted, and so those parties would attract more votes from people who vote Liberal as the "safe choice" as well as from those who just don't vote. Ditto for NDP, Green, and Conservative voters in Quebec. And so on. If we had PR, then the Liberals could never get the number of seats they do just by appealing to Ontario, unless 80% of Ontarians actually voted for them - which basically never happens.

 

Yeah yeah, I know, it doesn't work, though. Man, what a shame. Someone should really tell all those people in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, and so on, that their electoral systems don't work. I'm sure once you point that out to them, Matt, they'll be happy to switch to the British model, which even the British are abandoning (the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly use Mixed Member Proportional variants, and the movement for PR for the British House of Commons is about as strong, if not stronger, than the PR movement in Canada). ;)

Edited August 24, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

You can name call me all you want, but that does not make you right. If proportional representation came in, all it would mean is that all those people who do not vote Liberal or Conservative would vote for those two because of the simple matter it would be more important too. It would not equal things either because the reason Ontario and Quebec have such a majority is because they have such a large number of people living there. Also people currently will not vote Liberal because after twelve or so years, it seems likely the Liberals will be re-elected, so many people have the feeling it is time for a change too. So people would be willing to "throw away their votes" to other parties simply because it will seem meaningless. But many people would be more un-willing to send their votes to the far-right (Conseratives) or the far-left (N.D.P.) if prop rep happened. Generally, unless there is a major crisis people tend to vote for the middle.

[Bizud]

It would not equal things either because the reason Ontario and Quebec have such a majority is because they have such a large number of people living there.

 

Yes, but the point is that those people don't all vote the same way, so in order for a party to win enough votes to govern, they'd have to broaden their appeal past those provinces.

 

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

Edited August 24, 2005 by Bizud