Coalition Government For Canada???

[TheUsualSuspect]

I personally do not think that it would serve the best interest of this country.

Here is a link, for people interested.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Why not?

[TheUsualSuspect]

First of all the voices of Canadians are being ignored. What is the point of voting if our decision for the leaders of this government are going to be ignored? Are we choosing or are we being told???

Dion (Liberal leader) is going against Liberal supports by joining the other two parties.

For the record I do not support Harper and the Conservatives, but I do support the freedom of choice and this goes against that.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

How is the majority decision being ignored any more than it would be if the Conservatives formed the government? The votes of a majority of Canadians would be represented in the proposed left-center coalition, would they not? I mean this is a parliamentary system, right?

Am I missing something?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yes, you clearly are.

There should be more right wing parties, not a take over of Government.

It's only been a couple of months and a group of sneaky politicians are going to pick who the Prime Minister is? Canadians did not vote for this person, not one single person voted NDP-Liberal coalition not to even mention the addition of the Separatists in Bloc.

This is all about power and money and a middle finger to Canadians.

Hell, a recent poll indicated that 81% of Canadians are AGAINST this coalition.

I don't want another election, I don't think anyone does. But I sure as hell don't want people making decisions behind closed doors.

What a slap to the face of democracy.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Last time I checked, this is how parliamentary republics are designed to work. And last time I checked, Canada was a parliamentary republic. If you want more democracy, change your constitution. Same goes for the US by the way.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You know what, I didn't think about it that way. Let's all throw away our rights while were at it.

I had no idea that Canada, who is a parliamentary democracy, actually meant that the citizens had no voice in the leaders of their government.

Please forgive my 'apparent' ignorance.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

You know what, I didn't think about it that way. Let's all throw away our rights while were at it.I am actually suggesting quite the opposite. Changing the constitution is not the same as rejecting the constitution. Expanding democratic rights and freedoms is not the same as renouncing existing rights and freedoms, is it?
I had no idea that Canada, who is a parliamentary democracy, actually meant that the citizens had no voice in the leaders of their government.
No, but as Canada is a parliamentary republic you have no direct vote in the selection of your defacto chief executive. The office of the Prime Minister is voted in by a majority in parliament, correct?

The bottom line is this: you think that this move is undemocratic. But do you think that it should be constitutionally allowed?

[Lucifer Prometheus]

So what you're saying is that government by a majority coalition is less democratic than government by an arbitrarily enforced plurality by virtue of tradition?
And speaking of 'undemocratic,' it's still technically the Governor General's call isn't it?:laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

What you're telling me is that you don't care that a citizen has no voice in their government.

And thank you for proving my point. It shouldn't be their decision, it should be ours.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing statements that describe things as they are as opposed to things as they ought to be. Take a deep breath and reread my posts.What you're telling me is that you don't care that a citizen has no voice in their government.In fact I am saying quite the opposite. It just so happens that as Canada is a parliamentary republic you have no direct vote in the selection of your defacto chief executive.

The bottom line is this: you think that this move is undemocratic. But do you think that it should be constitutionally allowed?

[TheUsualSuspect]

When did I ever say that?

Do you not read posts either?

What part of voting for a party, who then wins, and then is over thrown by other parties without the voice of the citizens, do you not understand?

I say it is undemocratic, sure, but do you agree with me? Or do you just like arguing my posts?

I'm done bothering with you.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

When did I ever say that?You seem to demonstrate it every time you attempt to restate one of my positions. You are talking about the fact that every time you try to restate my positions you come out with some bizarre strawman, right?
What part of voting for a party, who then wins, and then is over thrown by other parties without the voice of the citizens, do you not understand?Why is this a problem when the 'usurper' parties in question constitute a majority in parliament that the people have just voted in?
I say it is undemocratic, sure, but do you agree with me? I still don't see how it is any less democratic than the alternative.

[mark f]

Maybe we should hear from some other Canadians about this. I realize that here in the U.S. that we actually vote for the President, who does belong to a party, and they can't do this here, but there are other countries where you vote for a Party rather than a candidate, and even if the people speak for a plurality, the other parties can apparently get together to strike some deal for their "respective constituencies".

One thing different between these countries and the U.S., however, is that Bush I and Perot could not have gotten together and struck a deal after the 1992 Presidential election and had Bill Clinton removed before he took the office of President. Of course, that didn't stop the "Powers That Be" from trying to remove him before he finished his second term. :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm done bothering with you.

;)

[Lucifer Prometheus]

I'm done bothering with you.You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.
One thing different between these countries and the U.S., however, is that Bush I and Perot could not have gotten together and struck a deal after the 1992 Presidential election and had Bill Clinton removed before he took the office of President.The fact is though that Perot's run basically constituted such a move against Bush. Perot wasn't in it to win- he was in it to **** things up for Bush. In the American system however, this did not guarantee Perot (and thus supposedly those who voted for him by proxy) a voice in the Clinton administration.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.


You've said nothing worth responding to. As it is with most other threads you post in.

[mark f]

You haven't substantively responded to anything that I've said anyway. So I say good riddance.

The fact is though that Perot's run basically constituted such a move against Bush. Perot wasn't in it to win- he was in it to **** things up for Bush. In the American system however, this did not guarantee Perot (and thus supposedly those who voted for him by proxy) a voice in the Clinton administration.

I don't think you can rid him from his own thread. I'm pretty sure there is more than one way to discuss a topic, and emotional responses to perceived injustices seem to work for several people. I don't believe that your responses will cause TUS to begin a drive for a constitutional amendment, but enough "emotional responses" from Canadians may well do the trick.

As far as Perot and his a la carte platform, he took just as many votes away from Clinton as he did from Bush. Perot ran on a "Maverick" campaign against "Politics as usual", so both Bush and Clinton were vulnerable to that. The fact that Clinton could twist Perot's words to benefit him more than H.W. isn't really surprising. By the way, Perot was the clear frontrunner in polls after the first debate.

Hey, Canucks, where are you, and what do you think about what may happen? I realize it's not a done deal yet.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

I don't think you can rid him from his own thread.I would never try to do such a thing. All I am saying is that his dismissive and condescending declaration of of being "done bothering" with me was actually preferable to the substance and tone of his previous responses. I try not to take things personally, but this is rather hard to do with personal insults.I'm pretty sure there is more than one way to discuss a topic, and emotional responses to perceived injustices seem to work for several people."Emotional" and "irrational" are not necessarily synonymous. I don't believe that your responses will cause TUS to begin a drive for a constitutional amendmentI was merely attempting to help him clarify his apparently muddled position.Perot ran on a "Maverick" campaign against "Politics as usual", so both Bush and Clinton were vulnerable to that.I have heard it argued that while Perot most certainly used his '92 campaign as a national platform for his specific views; his ultimate purpose was (among other things) to sabotage Bush's reelection campaign.

[mark f]

That's fine. I was 36 when I voted in that election. A billionaire tried to sabotage a "non-conservative" Republican to get an "unknown" Democrat elected? Revisionism is the new reality. Of course, the last eight years are also "revisionism", even if they actually happened.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

I have heard it said that Perot just ****ing hated Bush. Now mind you, I am not saying that I believe that this is true. To be frank, I don't have enough information to decide one way or the other. I was after all nine when I voted in that election. (:p)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Clear something up for me.....please.

Canada did not vote for NDP
Canada did not vote for Liberals.
Canada voted for Conservatives

Why is it (if this goes through) that NDP-LIBERALS are going to run the country.

How is that train of thought 'muddled'? How is it that a democratically elected government being overthrown in Canada such a muddled thought? No one wanted Dion, Layton, and sure as hell no one wanted Ducepe....but hey, We might get all 3.

I would rather have another election, as them as one, then to have them automatically take control. Please, tell me again, how is that thought 'muddled'.


For the record, I voted NDP in the last election.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Canada did not vote for NDP
Canada did not vote for Liberals.
Canada voted for Conservatives

Here are the facts as I understand them. Please tell me if I'm understanding this correctly and kindly correct me where I am wrong.

More people voted for the Conservatives than for any one other single party and thus the Conservatives have achieved a plurality in Parliament.

On the other hand, more people voted against the Conservatives than for the Conservatives. However, the anti-Conservative vote was largely split amongst three other parties: le Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the New Democrats.

The three parties in question have apparently found that they have more interests in common with one another than they do with the Conservatives and have decided to form a united caucus and thus put themselves in a position to form the government.

You hold that it would be more democratic for the elected anti-Conservative majority to remain split despite any common interests and to allow the Conservative plurality to form the government.
Is this an accurate assessment of the situation and your opinion on it? If not, then how so?
Would this be the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament that a majority coalition would form the government while the single party with the plurality of parliamentary seats would form the opposition?
What is stopping the Conservatives from offering one of the perspective coalition partners a better deal?

[Lucifer Prometheus]

I would rather have another election, as them as one, then to have them automatically take control.This certainly sounds like a better option than an outright plurality government.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You're still ignoring my questions.

Whatever.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Which point of yours have I not addressed?

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Might I also point out that the Conservative plurality consists of 37.65% of of the popular vote? This makes the "Canada voted for the Conservatives" premise seem a little thin to me. But we can ignore that little side note for the time being.

[Ijkky]

I didn't read the whole thread just the last page but Promethus seems to be talking sense. I would hardly call a third of the vote a victory for the Conservatives.

The fact remains though that roughly 60 % of Canadians actually voted left or center parties so it actually makes less sense that Conservatives, our only really right wing party, gets control of Parliament.

As Promethus mentions if the Conservatives want to hold onto the majority why don't they a reach across the aisle to another party and form their own coalition? They didn't win a strong majority so there going to have to compromise.

I don't really pay attention to politics too much here in Canada so don't rag on me too hard if I got something wrong. Voted NDP too by the way.

[TheUsualSuspect]

This is my final say on this subject.

I did vote for a left wing party, but not a coalition. There is a difference.

I do not support a coalition that involves a party that wants to separate from the country. I do not support a coalition that is being spearheaded by a man who is stepping down in the coming months.

Like I said before, if people want this coalition, let it be decided by the people. Conservatives VS Coalition. Not an immediate take over. If Canada wanted any of these parties in, they would have voted them in.

All I'm saying is this, FACT 1: Conservatives WERE elected to be government (majority, minority, it does not matter) two months in and they are being thrown out and we as Canadians deserve to have a say. I do not see YOUR logic in arguing this.

Personally I would like to see these men resign. We need fresh new faces with new ideas in our government. I do not like HARPER, I am not campaigning for him in any way, but the way the other parties are going about this, I also do not agree with.

This is taken from the Toronto Sun; 1 Loser + 1 Loser + 1 Loser = 3 winners?????

I mean come on, has a Coalition Government ever worked?

I'm wondering that if this succeeds, will people care to vote anymore?

All this talking about politics is making my head hurt. I'm going back to movies, where I can relax.

[Lucifer Prometheus]

You're still ignoring my questions.

Whatever.

[FILMFREAK087]

First of all the voices of Canadians are being ignored. What is the point of voting if our decision for the leaders of this government are going to be ignored? Are we choosing or are we being told???

Dion (Liberal leader) is going against Liberal supports by joining the other two parties.

For the record I do not support Harper and the Conservatives, but I do support the freedom of choice and this goes against that.

I take it as the Canadian version of the 2000 election?

[Lucifer Prometheus]

No, nothing like that at all. The Canadian system is a parliamentary republic without an independently elected executive. And this doesn't really seem like it's a matter for the courts to settle.

[TheUsualSuspect]

You're still ignoring my questions.
Whatever.

Gee, the same thing you were doing. I suggest getting down off your high horse.

The majority of Canadians are AGAINST this coalition.

As I stated before 81% of Canadians were against it in a recent poll.

Hell, even the facebook groups are againsts.

Anti Coalition Group is currently at 99,000 members
Pro Coalition groups are at 16,000 members

Take Care buddy.

[Ijkky]

A quick google just brought up another poll showing 40% in favour 35% against. Not saying your wrong just throwing into light that other polls are saying other things.

Whatever the point is I don't completely agree with it but after reading the reasons behind the coalition being formed I do sympathize. In Harper's new budget he's cutting a whole bunch of funding for all parties except his and he's denying the public service workers the right to strike for three years. That doesn't sound horribly democratic either. The way I see it he's painted the oppposition into a corner.

As for coalition governments not suceeding? Didn't Pearson put through public healthcare during a coalition? (really not sure just throwing it out there)

Anyways I totally agree with you that most of our politicians should just leave. Everyone is really uninspiring and I just wish we could have someone that will actually inspire people to get involved in politics.