In Just a Few Hours Harpers Fascist Hold of Canada will be Over

[mercyshooter]

to me, voting is just to act our rights. the system is pretty dead useless compared to those in asia!
the political government in canada is about political parties, not people!
i've been a scrutineer before for the red party. i've seen people vote for an invalid ballot because they fucking hate the politicians abusing the system!
they even write foul words at the back of the ballots!

 

[uncleg]

Just about another hour and the polls close. Harpers fascist reign will be over. And it not soon enough. Take a look at the damage he's done to Canada in just a few short years.

He turned a peace keeping mission in Afganistian into a bloody occupations and a military disaster for Canada. The biggest mistake he made was not listening common sense and letting his megalomaniac ego take over. He started a war with of all people the Taliban. Remember, this is the bunch that beat the crap out of the Russian Army, kicked the British Army out and survived the onslaught of the US Air Force, the most powerful and advance nation in the world.

Jack Layton (soon to be Prime Minister Layton ) was well aware of the situation and recommended opening a dialog with the Taliban. Taking and working out a comprimise to share power would have been a lot less bloody.

Of course he uses the excuse that his war is a war on terror and he is "protecting" Canadian. But remember, up until we start the war, the Taliban were never a threat to any Canadian. An even if they were a threat to Canada, what Harper from a military stand point was completely stupid. We are sending troops to into the Taliban's own teritory where they know the lay of the land and have the military advantage. If the Taliban really were a threat, we are better of having our troops at home defending our own teritory where we have the advantage.

Harper also screwed up the economy royally. Take a look the the shear number of unemployed people. And instead of taxing the rich and corporations to help with the poor and unemployed, the idiot give them a tax break. He even cut the GST which created a massive deficit. He even has the nerve to call his policy a success. How the fuck does this idiot define success, by the number of people he made homeless.

 

[kenchorney]

To Stephen Harper and those who voted for him:

Looks like someone is a poor loser

 

[Yman]

Just about another hour and the polls close. Harpers fascist reign will be over.

Wow...what an insult to all the true facists. I'm surprised this post was missing a photo of Harper with a liltte mustache

 

[aznboi9]

aznboi: Thanks for the educational on the various forms which proportional representation can, and may, take. I wish you'd expand on them to identify the respective weaknesses and strengths of each variation as in actual practice.

It kind of depends on the exact manifestation of a particular voting system as you can have variations on the same system (eg: open lists vs closed lists for Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)). Generally speaking though:

MMP
Pros:
-election results more accurately reflect the will of the people, so less votes are wasted
-still retains local constituencies that are elected under First Past the Post (FPTP) while party lists are used to correct the discrepancies that it always produces
-can correct the structural barrier of FPTP that leads to underrepresentation of women and minorities in the legislature
-corrects the problem of FPTP where the voter has to vote for their MP/MLA and party with one vote (they may like a candidate but not the party and vice versa). Voters would get two votes: one for the local representative and one for the party.
-reduces the regionalization that can occur with FPTP (eg the Bloc getting double the seats of the NDP even though the NDP gets double the votes)

Cons:
-more minority governments (pro or con depending on your viewpoint; more the most part, minorities are usually pretty stable under PR)
-related to women and minorities, even though it leads to more women and minorities in the legislature, you get an interesting phenomenon where you get them more on the side of opposition and less in the governing party
-the counting method can be confusing to voters
-depending on whether you used closed or open lists, you can get two classes of politicians: those loyal to the constituencies they were elected in and those more loyal to the party

Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Pros:
-eliminates the need for strategic voting, increasing choices for the voter
-requires that MP's get elected with a collective majority
-while proportional, fringe parties generally don't get elected, due to the high threshold needed as well as the need to garner support from voters of other parties
-helps to correct underrepresentation of women and minorities without the imbalance seen in MMP
-because of the use of the preferential ballot, it requires politicians to generally act more civil and respectful as they need to be able to appeal outside of their core support
-because of the high threshold needed to get elected as well as the fact that they'd also be competing against members of their own party, a great deal of pressure is placed on politicians to pay attention to their local constituency.

Cons:
-the counting method can be confusing for voters
-the constituencies are large, which may be unworkable in a country as large as Canada and can diminish the feel of having a local representative
-related to the politicians and their local constituencies, sometimes, they prioritize local issues over the national interest or party policy

There's probably more; but that's all I can think of for now.

I'm more in favor of a preferential ballot system. I'm pasting the answer I gave in the other thread:

Instant run off voting is certainly better than FPTP, I would use it to elect the PM as well. The only real weakness is the lack of proportionality, so I would still view it as weaker than STV or MMP; but that depends on your view of what a legislature's general purpose is supposed to be.

 

[Walk Softly]

Thanks aznboi! A clear and concise explanation. Personally, I'm all in favour of a bicameral system of governance as long as both houses are elected. I'd like to see one house more proportional and the other more regional. ( The triple-E senate etc.) Sorry PEI!

 

[juniper]

Just wanted to thank alinboi9 and Alan of Burnaby for making such an interested effort in educating us (me) about various other kinds of proportional/preferential voting systems other than "first past the post" and geographic representation. As for the Conservatives' stunning win, I think we shall see a huge change in how the Senate gets elected/appointed, especially now that Mr. Harper has the say on who the next few senators will be so that the Conservatives will have a voting majority in that House also. And one little prediction: The NDP has many new politicians in place, some very young and inexperienced. It reminds me of when Bob Rae took over Ontario with the surprising victory of the NDP. I was there. It was disastrous. I think we will be viewing something similar with the new NDP and it will turn against them as it did in Ontario.

 

[chilli]

I am not in favor of retaining the Senate. Canada does not need a parking spot for old political warhorses who are, in reality, paid fundraisers for the political parties of the past. The Senate is the reason that it takes so long for Parliament to re-align to the changes wanted by Canadians because they can and do vote down any legislation that would change the system in force when they were appointed.

The Senate is the only thing we have that protects us against a PM that decides to get stupid and enact laws against the wishes of the people.

Granted the Senate usually rubber stamps everything, but seeing as how we already have a dictatorship for 4 years between elections - I'd hate to see any party with that much power.

 

[juniper]

The point is, chilli, and you have already stated it, the Senate "usually rubber stamps everything"... So, in fact, it does not protect us unlike the Senate in the USA where senators are given six-year stints but one-third of them are voted on every two years so that its make-up changes, slowly to be sure, over time, whereas our own changes but very grudgingly and imperceptibly. So I do look forward to the changes I expect Mr. Harper will finally put in place. As to calling our current Parliament a "dictatorship", I'd have to call you to account: You've obviously never lived in a true "dictatorship" such as what people have been experiencing in Libya or Syria or Iran.

 

[niteowl]

They way I see it is, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the HST,super prisons and jets. And the way so many people voted for the Conservatives is telling Harper yes we like the HST.

 

[joho]

I would like to nominate Ryan Kesler for the prime minister!

 

[DrainedDong]

Im typing on an android so ill keep it short. Canada has an army and i fully support any additional spending on any piece of equipment to keep them safe, i also believe our presence abroad is crucial to canadians safety here at home. Eliminating threats abroad to keep our country safe is imo the right thing. Eventually their numbers will dwindle and democracy will overtake. The thoughts of us being over there defending and killing i know aggravates some but i think its a necessary evil in order to kill the ideology and make way for democracy. If we left them be and pulled out the hate and other influences would ignite the entire country and we would have a bigger problem then the few that exsist already. No one wants to see loved ones perish for a stupid cause ie: suicide bombings or other. Bring a sense of calm to a nation push the rejects out and hopefully they can adjust to defending themselves with or without our help. This subject has alot of different views and sometimes i see some absolute ignorance from narrow minded heads. So much for my short comment. Ohh yea and i dont think Harper has been doing to bad but hopefully he doesnt dip too much into his biblical belt and abolish abortion and the other religous views and keeps going on the same course, i give him 2 thumbs up and I like Layton but a BDP government scares me, YIKES!!!

 

[aznboi9]

Thanks aznboi! A clear and concise explanation. Personally, I'm all in favour of a bicameral system of governance as long as both houses are elected. I'd like to see one house more proportional and the other more regional. ( The triple-E senate etc.) Sorry PEI!

Your welcome. Australia does have system where the house is elected by preferential ballot (alternative vote) and the senate by STV. The only problem with their system set up is that you have to rank every single candidate on the ballot which makes it unwieldy for voters; giving voters the option of ranking as many or few candidates as they wish makes it much easier (and how it should be, IMO).

Unfortunately, electoral reform is very unlikely with the exception of the senate. The problem is that in order for reform to occur, it has to come from the politicians. In essence, the inmates are running the asylum and are in charge of making up the rules; you're going to be hard pressed to get them to agree to change that balances out or limits their power or transfers more choice to the voters.

Referendums seem to be pretty useless unless the government is willing to spend a lot of resources educating the average voter as the vast majority of them don't know, nor have the interest of knowing, how our system detrimentally affects the political arena and the voter. Additionally, my experience is that voters will vote against reform for a variety of reasons unrelated to the actual ballot question, such as partisan interests. Finally, you add the propensity of anti-reformers having no qualms about lying as a campaign strategy, leading to confusion on the part of the average voter, well, it makes for a very steep hill to climb.

As for the Conservatives' stunning win, I think we shall see a huge change in how the Senate gets elected/appointed, especially now that Mr. Harper has the say on who the next few senators will be so that the Conservatives will have a voting majority in that House also.

One policy that the Conservatives have that I agree with is an elected senate, which they had been trying to push through the house but was blocked by the Liberals (although that doesn't make sense when I think about it as they should have been able to get NDP support). Apparently, they had put a bill forward for a senate that would be elected using STV as the voting system. It would be fantastic if they ever followed through on that initiative; but we'll have to see on that.

 

[curmudgeon]

The Brits just had a referendum (this past week) on what they called a "Alternative Voting" system (it's a variation of a transferrable vote).

The "No" side (the one advocating keeping "first past the post") won handily.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lide-defeat-in-voting-referendum-2280327.html

 

[aznboi9]

I think 2 things play into that.
1. People don't like the idea that a candidate other than the one they voted for can use their vote to be elected. That's why I favor a preferential ballot. The voter is then clearly choosing their second choice.

Alternative voting IS the preferential ballot. Voters would have been able to rank as many or as few candidates as they wished, even marking an X as they would under FPTP.

The reasons for the referendum's failure had to do with many reasons that I alluded to above:

1. Partisan interest: voting intention was sharply divided among party lines with Liberal-Democrat (like the NDP) voters in favour and Conservative supporters against (the Conservatives would have lost a lot of seats under AV while the Lib-Dems probably would have benefited). Labour (like Liberal) supporters were split but more toward the no side.

2. Dishonest campaigning: on the day of the vote, it was revealed that people behind the No campaign had simply fabricated a “fact” on how much elections would cost to run under AV, claiming that AV elections would cost 250 million pounds more than holding elections under FPTP.

3. Reasons unrelated to the ballot question: in some of the stupidest reasoning I have ever encountered, people voted against AV because they “wanted to send a message to Nick Clegg” (Lib-Dem leader). The No campaign knew this and exploited the hatred of Mr. Clegg for all that it was worth.

4. Confusion: people didn't understand the system eg: thinking that the “some votes counted more than others” BS of the No side was true.

There are other reasons as well; but those are probably the ones that stood out most to me based on my observations of the reform campaign. Because of this and our past referendum, I really have lost faith in referendums as a good way of deciding public policy; people become too polarized, too easily confused and simply are not informed enough to make what should be a decision based on clear minded thinking.

2. People don't really like the idea of an increased potential for minority governments. Minority governments can't accomplish big things and most of us admit/know that big things are required of our governments if we are to continue to be able to support our lifestyle. Today, we are watching Greece threaten to exit from the Eurozone because Greece can't pay it's debts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322804576303142464082556.html The problems Greece has are the same that most Western Nations have. People want all of the entitlement programs, but they don't want to pay taxes at a level high enough to support those programs. Minority governments can't work their way out of that trap because they will be defeated quickly. It's difficult enough for a majority government because government always has to be able to bring their citizens along in support of policy.

Like the Isreal/Italy comparison of PR, Greece is only one example of economic development and government action under minorities and PR. You could flip it around and point to Germany which appears to be a leader in recovery from the global financial crisis. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-15/germany-s-economic-recovery-will-broaden-in-2011-s-p-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.html

The fact is that western governments under PR have generally been more stable and have had fewer elections in the last 50 years than governments under FPTP, even though they almost always deliver minority governments. Additionally, 19 of the top 26 countries with the highest GDP per capita are european, with 18 governed by minorities under PR. So to attribute the problems of Greece as being representative of governance under minority is likely an oversimplification.

 

[DavidMR]

Has anyone notice how bitter the Liberals are? They really just don't accept the idea that their position could possibly be where it is. Since they cannot blame the media, they are blaming the NDP, whom they have been whining about ever since Paul Martin lost power. Now they have a new target, the youth MPs Layton won in Quebec. They say these people are not qualified, and then in the next sentence they tell you Justin Trudeau would be a great Prime Minister.

 

[aznboi9]

Actually, if you got your Census form in the last few days, you can see just how inexpensive and convenient voting could be. Even if you still have a Returning Officer for each Electoral District to do special voting for shut ins and those who don't own/don't know how to use a computer - elections could be secure and inexpensive. (as a comparison to what we currently spend) Also, preferential balloting would be easy because computers will prompt you for your second choice.

So, expense isn't an issue that I'd be willing to argue as a reason not to do it.

Of course it's not a reason; that doesn't stop people from fabricating facts.

Germany has it's own problems with it's population of "Guest Workers". I really wouldn't want to live in Germany, especially as a Guest Worker. I think that there is an explosion waiting to happen there.

Doesn't change the fact that they've weathered the economic crisis quite well.

 

[niteowl]

Ya niteowl that's exactly what all of us who voted Conservatives are saying
You lost, get over it.

I lost? How could I lose I didn't run for MP.

 

[niteowl]

Oh a thousand pardons Dictator Hunkhunkaburninluv for expressing my opinion. Please don't flog me in the the public square.

 

[chicas]

Stop rubbing it in ! I am just starting to get over the depression I feel when I think I will be an old man by the time we see this *ss *ole out of power. I will be so old and senile that some of his policies may just start to make sense.
Thank God that Quebec came to their senses and even elected some MP that are so young they hardly know where to pee let alone how to take a bribe. Next time we need to ellect a whole bunch of MPs that don't know what they are doing. Then we might get somewhere!
Also a majority government is the worst thing we could do. I am a huge fan of a co-aliance goverment or a government that had to get along with someone with a different view , or at least someone that wasn't lead by a dictator. This ellection was so bad but, it held some hope.
I am for electoral reform. Next time let us put a X on the name of the candidate who's party we couldn't stand to see govern this country( like we are crossing off that option) Bye Bye Conservatives. (sour grapes .. I know... just a dream... but think about it) chicas