Beat Quebec To It

[josiegross]

i was reading on another message board (i don't care to post on) differing opinions on a western separation.

 

when i lived in alberta i considered myself a separatist, but since rumor has it klein isn't running again, i don't know who would run the western country, and i'm not so gung-ho about it these days.

 

 

when non-separatists (usually easterners) hear "western seperation" they think that means alberta wants to become it's own country, or join the us. not true. alberta wants to take man, sask, bc, and the territories with it, and form it's own country. i know that it sounds ridiculous, but we haven't got a voice west of ontario. we don't. alberta votes nearly ALL conservative every election and it makes no difference. whoever wins in ontario wins in the country.

 

soooo, i'd like to hear what you all think of that. (especially ecnarf. things can get pretty heated)

 

 

 

edit: grrr. 53 wpm, only 93% accuracy.

Edited December 30, 2005 by josiegross

[ecnarf]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason why whoever wins in Ontario usually forms the government is because so much more of the population is out here. It's not because we're evil power leeches, it's because we're bigger (and, of course, better) than you.

 

By the way, I think it's awfully nice of Alberta to want to take the entire western and northern part of the country out with them. Then you'd get to be the only "have" province and would have no reason to complain about giving to the "have-nots", because you'd bring it upon yourselves.

 

Also, I just noticed that you wanted to hear what I had to say. I'm flattered, really, but I'll have you know I wrote the above without knowing you had specifically asked for my thoughts.

 

P.S. To add to what I said above, the majority of Quebec seats went to the Bloc Quebecois in the last election, but the Bloc didn't form a government, so doesn't Quebec effectively have no representation? And you don't see them trying to... well, no, that's a bad example.

 

But if you're serious about seperation, we'll hand you the bill for your share of the national debt on your way out.

Edited December 30, 2005 by ecnarf

[josiegross]

i understand all that blather about how most of the population is in ontario, but if we're all one big country shouldn't the west be properly represented? 1. as far as bringing the quebec situation into it: seems ontario is the only province who feels they are properly represented in the federal government. hmmmm. interesting. 2. alberta wanting to take the rest of canada with them isn't about being haves and have-nots, it's about forming a country in which the people have similar (not to be confused with "the same") interests and ideals, as well as having that whole yin and yang business. if alberta was out on thier own they'd be conservative. if they take bc with them they've got a huge liberal presence, and both sides of the coin. this is completely necessary in a democracy. if it were alberta alone the twelve left wingers that live there would leave. 3. (this is my favorite point that you made) wouldn't alberta's surplus last year have paid off the west's share of national debt and then some? money grows on trees there. i know. i went there for christmas.

 

i think the threat of seperation could be eliminated if the system of voting was changed to something where, oh i don't know, say the percentage of voters who voted one way was equal to the percentage of seats that party got. and, what if party leaders weren't able to decide how party members voted, but instead the population that voted for each party member controlled how that memeber voted? and, this might sound crazy, but what if the population of a democratic country got to decide not only who their government IS but what that government DOES? huh? think about it.

 

the federal government has been f*cking (i don't know if i'm allowed to use swearwords in this section) alberta in the ass for a long time. and i think alberta wants a government that doesn't just come around during the money harvest, but comes around when things are less than peachy. like if alberta's top export was rejected by the rest of the world or something like that.

[Moonlight_Graham]

It makes me sad when i hear Alberta wants to seperate. I don't blame them a bit though. The Liberals & our gov't have really screwed them over and it would be sad to see the country broken up just because of the power-mongering of one political party.

 

Ontario though is the biggest province and most any way you slice it they will always get the most seats. Many people in Ontario vote Conservative, but about 3 times as many vote Liberal. I guess Ontario is just more of a socialist/leftwing province than the others in the West, plus the fact that most immigrants live in Ontario (see: Toronto) and immigrants vote Liberal because the grits cater to them like gold & would give them all hand-jobs if it would mean their vote.

 

Anyways, i'd just like you to know that we don't want Alberta or any in the west to leave. The blame is on the politicians who treat you like crap, and i've personally done everything i can to vote them out of power. In fact my riding in Ottawa voted in a Conservative seat the last federal elections so gimme a high five. The Liberals give Ontarians (and much moreso Quebec) a lot of handouts and "backdoor bribes", which we seem reluctant to want to give up in favour of another, better gov't.

 

But if you guys do seperate along with the rest of the west, i may just go live with you guys instead of this bullshit.

[josiegross]

1. high five

 

2. we'd be happy to have you.

 

 

 

 

ecnarf: just did the political compass test. did you know we have damn near the same spot? i'm

Economic Left/Right: -7.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

 

 

yet we disagree on EVERYTHING.

Edited December 31, 2005 by josiegross

[no yu begin wher i end]

In the last election, only 2 seats in Alberta weren't won by Conservatives, but only about 60% of the population voted for them. Just thought I'd share that tidbit o' info.

[ecnarf]

i understand all that blather about how most of the population is in ontario, but if we're all one big country shouldn't the west be properly represented? 1. as far as bringing the quebec situation into it: seems ontario is the only province who feels they are properly represented in the federal government. hmmmm. interesting. 2. alberta wanting to take the rest of canada with them isn't about being haves and have-nots, it's about forming a country in which the people have similar (not to be confused with "the same") interests and ideals, as well as having that whole yin and yang business. if alberta was out on thier own they'd be conservative. if they take bc with them they've got a huge liberal presence, and both sides of the coin. this is completely necessary in a democracy. if it were alberta alone the twelve left wingers that live there would leave. 3. (this is my favorite point that you made) wouldn't alberta's surplus last year have paid off the west's share of national debt and then some? money grows on trees there. i know. i went there for christmas.

 

i think the threat of seperation could be eliminated if the system of voting was changed to something where, oh i don't know, say the percentage of voters who voted one way was equal to the percentage of seats that party got. and, what if party leaders weren't able to decide how party members voted, but instead the population that voted for each party member controlled how that memeber voted? and, this might sound crazy, but what if the population of a democratic country got to decide not only who their government IS but what that government DOES? huh? think about it.

 

the federal government has been f*cking (i don't know if i'm allowed to use swearwords in this section) alberta in the ass for a long time. and i think alberta wants a government that doesn't just come around during the money harvest, but comes around when things are less than peachy. like if alberta's top export was rejected by the rest of the world or something like that.

i understand all that blather about how most of the population is in ontario, but if we're all one big country shouldn't the west be properly represented? 1. as far as bringing the quebec situation into it: seems ontario is the only province who feels they are properly represented in the federal government. hmmmm. interesting. 2. alberta wanting to take the rest of canada with them isn't about being haves and have-nots, it's about forming a country in which the people have similar (not to be confused with "the same") interests and ideals, as well as having that whole yin and yang business. if alberta was out on thier own they'd be conservative. if they take bc with them they've got a huge liberal presence, and both sides of the coin. this is completely necessary in a democracy. if it were alberta alone the twelve left wingers that live there would leave. 3. (this is my favorite point that you made) wouldn't alberta's surplus last year have paid off the west's share of national debt and then some? money grows on trees there. i know. i went there for christmas.

 

You got to see money growing on trees in Alberta? Damn. I've been there a few times (although not for Christmas, which probably makes a difference) and all I got to see were a few lousy mountains and an oil field.

 

Besides that, if you want to pay for your share (and BC's share, and Manitoba's share, and Saskatchewan's share, and the Yukon's, NWT's and Nunavut's share) of the debt, well, I'm sure nobody in Ottawa would refuse the cheque.

 

Although I have to admit, I'm confused by the yin and yang thing. If Alberta wants to form its own country, why would it want to bring the treehuggers from B.C. along? That would kind of... umm... ruin everything, wouldn't it? And do tell me why the treehuggers in B.C. would want to go along with the experiment.

 

i think the threat of seperation could be eliminated if the system of voting was changed to something where, oh i don't know, say the percentage of voters who voted one way was equal to the percentage of seats that party got. and, what if party leaders weren't able to decide how party members voted, but instead the population that voted for each party member controlled how that memeber voted? and, this might sound crazy, but what if the population of a democratic country got to decide not only who their government IS but what that government DOES? huh? think about it.

 

Sssh! Don't let Matt hear you talking about proportional representation. As a Green Party advocate, you can probably imagine that I wouldn't exactly be aversed to having mixed member proportional representation implemented in Ottawa.

 

the federal government has been f*cking (i don't know if i'm allowed to use swearwords in this section) alberta in the ass for a long time. and i think alberta wants a government that doesn't just come around during the money harvest, but comes around when things are less than peachy. like if alberta's top export was rejected by the rest of the world or something like that.

 

Go ahead and swear, we don't really pay attention to that.

[Ravenous Yam]

the federal government has been f*cking alberta in the ass for a long time. and i think alberta wants a government that doesn't just come around during the money harvest

This sums up the entire situation perfectly.

That, and that Alberta has exactly zero influence in federal politics.

[Moonlight_Graham]

zero influence? More like 0.8% influence. ;)

[Matt]

Proportional Representation means that the government would get even less done than it does during a majority government so Alberta would probably get even less help.

 

B.C.ers? Treehuggers? What? Most of us are not Treehuggers. Also it is unlikely B.C. would separate if Alberta did, there doesn't seem to much advocacy for it anymore, even before the Liberals started catering to B.C. a bit more. However, every party tries to cater to groups of voters, so it's not like that's a bad thing. Back to separation, I don't know how everyone else would go, except for Alberta though who seems strongly to want to leave. However, Quebec isn't all that different than Canada if you really look at it either, about half the population is comprised of english speaking Canadians, many of whom have British origins.

[Russell]

Klein as the leader of a new Alberta-led country? Oh come on. Klein is nothing more than a drunken, arrogant moron. The only reason Alberta is doing so well under his 'reign' is because of the current oil wealth, which will not last forever.

 

I can understand talking about separation. I can see why you would feel it necessary. But Klein? He's a fucking moron and the last person who should be running ANY government, let alone an entire province or country.

[josiegross]

what the hell do you know? you made a puppy sandwich!

 

(i'm kidding. except, you did in fact make a puppy sandwich)

 

FOR THE RECORD: i'm not rude. i'm not insulting. i have a sarcastic personality that apperantly doesn't come off so well in print. i live in BC, so i don't mean anything insulting by calling the people of this province tree huggers. the city of vancouver has this incredible respect for nature in the sense that they have these green areas designated to not be paved over, for example.

that and i'm a fucking tree hugger myself.

 

 

no you begin...:

another tidbit of info: do you know what voter turnout is like in alberta? people are a lot more likely to speak up if they feel heard.

 

ecnarf: regarding the provinces alberta would take with them; mostly it's a matter of what makes sense geographically. but bc is nice. and the people don't suck.

i don't KNOW why "the treehuggers in B.C. would want to go along with the experiment", so i can't tell you.

 

matt: actually there is very little support for seperation in alberta. albertans are canadians. we like that. we'd probably take the name in the divorce. BUT the people in all of the prairie provinces are sick and tired of having no voice when it comes to federal politics, and of uncle paul and his kids coming around to ask for hand outs when they did dick all for us in our hour(s) of need.

 

russell: if you disagree with klein's politics, two thumbs up. you're entitled. but personal attacks? what are you? a freaking politician?

and maybe he is a little rough around the edges, but you've got to admit there's something a little refreshing about a politician so willing to call it like he sees it that he would tell the press the conservative party he belongs to will never win a federal election as long as stephen harper is the leader.

and finally, i've re read the whole topic and i can't find an instance where i referred to ralph klein's term in office as his "reign". if you're going to quote me as saying that, would you point out where i did please? thanks.

Edited January 4, 2006 by josiegross

[Russell]

I didn't intend to offend or attack you. I meant to attack Klein :angry: I do like how he is a real person and not some stiff in a suit, but I am rather irritated at times by how "real" of a person he is. I wasn't quoting you on reign, that was my word. I use it because I feel that it describes his time in office. I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, that was not my intent. I'm just getting in the spirit of the politics forum ;).

 

As for the icon, I thought it was cute so I chose it as my avatar (at least for the time being). PS: It's a hot dog.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Russell

[josiegross]

ah yes, what would be the fun of arguing politics if it didn't get a little heated?

 

 

(i just had three paragraphs written about the puppy in your sandwich, but i thought the politics and debate forum was probably not the place to discuss cute puppies.)

[Matt]

Well the problem for Alberta is they don't elect enough Albertan Liberal MPs for the Liberals to focus to much attention on Alberta, they need to get a few more seats to get a little more sort have an idea.

[josiegross]

i understand what you mean by that, but that's not what the democratic process is about. if you don't vote for the party that ends up winning you're out of luck? first of all, the pm is supposed to concern himself with the WHOLE country, not just the ones who voted for him. secondly, the party that is elected in your riding has a responsibility to you to be your voice in the house. those are the rules. to say that alberta is ignored because they don't vote liberal has to be either a) not true or b) another reason to not vote liberal. who wants a party in control of our country that treats thier election like a student council win?

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

after mentioning the voter turnout (or lack thereof) in AB i decided to go look at the numbers myself. i had a general idea, but i like to know the numbers. i found that ontario isn't that good for voter turnout either! granted, 4% of ontario is a lot of freaking people, but, check this out:

 

Table A.6

Edited January 6, 2006 by josiegross

[Monochrome Rainbow]

That really sickens me that the province with the most seats has one of the lowest turnouts. Fuck you, Ontario.

[Ravenous Yam]

It's pretty hard to get motivated to vote when your whole province has almost no effect whatsoever on the federal outcome. I'm still gonna vote though.

[Matt]

i understand what you mean by that, but that's not what the democratic process is about. if you don't vote for the party that ends up winning you're out of luck? first of all, the pm is supposed to concern himself with the WHOLE country, not just the ones who voted for him. secondly, the party that is elected in your riding has a responsibility to you to be your voice in the house. those are the rules. to say that alberta is ignored because they don't vote liberal has to be either a) not true or b) another reason to not vote liberal. who wants a party in control of our country that treats thier election like a student council win?

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit:

after mentioning the voter turnout (or lack thereof) in AB i decided to go look at the numbers myself. i had a general idea, but i like to know the numbers. i found that ontario isn't that good for voter turnout either! granted, 4% of ontario is a lot of freaking people, but, check this out:

 

Table A.6

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

It's interesting that the provinces with the lowest turnout are perceived to be the ones that are already decided (ie/ the Libs will sweep Ontario, and the Cons will sweep Alberta and the prairies.)

[josiegross]

But, the Prime Minister is supposed to represent the people who voted for him, if Stephen Harper was elected, he definitely wouldn't represent what I am voting for. In fact I was once upon a time a Progressive Conservative supporter, however, the merger was pretty crappy for many PC supporters who had a party that didn't represent their views. And if they get elected, are they all of a sudden going to change to support what the majority of Canadians support all the time? Probably not.

quite frankly, there isn't one candidate i feel would represent me completely. i agree with a combination of the three major platforms. for me it's a matter of priorities.

 

the prime minister only represents the people who voted for his party, but if you vote for who you believe will represent you properly, you still have a voice up there in the house, it just isn't the loudest one.

 

 

i don't want a stephen harper government either, and i used to be a CA supporter. if only preston harper had a personality, maybe people would've listened to his ideas, he had some great ones.

 

 

i forget where i'm going with this one. sorry.

[Ravenous Yam]

Did anyone catch the debates today?

 

 

 

In short, Harper and Duceppe came across the best - articulate and did not stoop to the personal attacks Martin did..

 

Martin was an argumentative prick who kept insulting the other three directly, and Layton reminded me of a used car salesman in that he dodged all his questions, substituting instead with "VOTE FOR ME, I'M GOOD!!" and some crap about giving old people back their dignity (was it missing?).

 

However, the coolest person there was the mediator. That must be one difficult job, and he had some really good questions.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Yeah, that "Studio 2" guy who was the moderator won the debate. LOL.

[ecnarf]

Public Broadcasting television host for prime minister!

[Ravenous Yam]

I'd vote for him!