Is Harper Destroying Democracy?

[sdw]

If the people align with the party on policy (via party whip) then the individual people don't matter and you are voting for a party not a person. As it stands 100% of the power is coming from a party that only 39% of the voters supported. Gerrymandering has awarded them disproportionate seats. Yes there will be people who got seats that first past the post would've denied them, obviously. That's the point. But since it's the party that acts as a unit, and individuals members apparently align to the wishes of the party rather than their constituents anyway, it is preferable at least that the votes cast ideologically align with the average ideology of the electorate as a whole. It's an improvement over the current system.

Does it solve everything? Probably not. But under this system the most egregious changes that came to be under the Conservative "majority" would not have sailed through without scrutiny or debate. It would force more cooperation amongst the disparate ideologies, leading to a more moderate middle ground. Honestly I think even Conservatives should want that lest there be a day the "crazy left" takes the wheel and does to them what the Conservatives have done to their opponents.

Another benefit of proportional representation is that they would make little gains in courting a 1% fringe group because 1% is all you get, rather than tipping it past the first past the post threshold to gain 100% of the power. So they would all benefit more from courting the majority (middle ground) electorate again and that would also serve democracy.

The less ideal alternative is a coalition on the left to even things out against the current coalition that formed on the right... A two party system effectively. But unfortunately the parties on the left (or at least the Liberals) let their pride get in the way of what would best serve their supporters. The majority of this country is not right wing (or at least as right wing as the Conservatives). The only reason they are in power is because this minority ideology consolidated their effort under one party while the left did not. This is the reason Harper hypocritically derides the very notion of a leftist coalition, because he knows how well it works.

In your last paragraph you are mistaken. If you take the Conservatives and the Blue Liberals, Canada is 50% or more Right Wing in philosophy. This is backed up with all 6 of the polls that were released today. (Abacus, EKOS, Ipso Reid, Nanos, Forum, Leger) Abacus and Nanos have nice, easy to understand tables that track first ballot choice and second ballot choice. An amazing number of Bloc, Green and NDP voters have the Conservatives as their second choice.

Abacus has their table on page 8 of this PDF. http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Abacus-Release-Election-Wave-5-Release-1-FINAL.pdf As you will see, 20% are still undecided and actual declared party support is:
CPC 26%
LPC 25%
NDP 19%
GPC 4% 6% in BC - No Elizabeth May will not retain her seat
BQ 4% 15% in Quebec - The NDP has lost it's vote to the BQ who will likely be the third party after October 19, the NDP is looking likely to be the fourth party.
Undecided 20% - polls often erroneously portion these voters out among the parties. THESE PEOPLE DON'T VOTE - EVER Putting people that don't vote into the likely to vote for pool is why polls are often spectacularly wrong.

Political Parties also keep "Power Tables" that convert poll numbers into something their campaign manager can use to apportion resources. Power Tables take the number of voters that Polls say should have voted and compare that number to the number of voters that actually voted. The Conservatives have Power Tables for the individual polling divisions Canada wide based on actual numbers for many elections. The NDP has NDP Vote which only has Power Tables for each riding. The Liberals lost a lot of information in the "Succession Wars" but basically match the NDP.

This is why you see the media referring to the "efficiency" of the Conservative vote and giving them more seats despite their poll numbers being equal or less than the Liberals.

If the Conservatives have the most seats on October 19th they will be able to form and hold government. The Bloc will vote with the Conservatives on measures that benefit Quebec. The Bloc will likely be the third party on October 19th.

If the Liberals have the most seats on October 19th they will be able to form and hold government. The Bloc will vote with the Liberals on measures that benefit Quebec. The Bloc will likely be the third party on October 19th. The NDP won't be welcomed into a coalition by the Liberals because they remember who voted with the Conservatives to force the 2004 election. There is no possibility of the Liberals working with the NDP to form a coalition government.

 

[sdw]

To address the last part first, MOST people did not vote for the government current in power, and so for them to take a 100% of the power on about 25% explicit support is also a total insult to democracy.

And a secretive trade deal negotiated by corporate lobbyists that our elected representatives were unable to see the contents of and discuss whether it was in the best interests of Canadians, and will override laws debated and voted on by elected representatives of Canadians, and can result in huge fines for Canada in secret courts outside of the Canadian legal system, has EVERYTHING to do with democracy, or the lack of it in this instance. We are moving back into a system of feudalism when our elected representatives don't have any say over the laws of the country and instead multinational corporations get to dictate what the laws are. What has happened is NOT democracy and is the kind of action that will ultimately lead to revolution. Corporations are a legal structure that should be serving the people who work within them and society, not society servants of the corporations.

Totally agree with your second paragraph. Your first paragraph, unfortunately, is mistaken.

 

[clu]

In your last paragraph you are mistaken. If you take the Conservatives and the Blue Liberals, Canada is 50% or more Right Wing in philosophy. ...

Be fair, I qualified that statement as "or at least not as right wing as the Conservatives". Ideology is not a binary choice (despite the American two-party system giving that illusion).

I'm saying that an enlightened democracy should govern from a blend of ideologies since no one party platform represents the majority of us.

In that way minority governments are probably better for us than majority governments except for the whole "I don't want to play anymore" suite of tactics like proroguing and no-confidence votes that send us back to the polls repeatedly in hopes that the electorate will give them enough seats to remove their obligation to cooperate.

 

[sdw]

Be fair, I qualified that statement as "or at least not as right wing as the Conservatives". Ideology is not a binary choice (despite the American two-party system giving that illusion).

I'm saying that an enlightened democracy should govern from a blend of ideologies since no one party platform represents the majority of us.

In that way minority governments are probably better for us than majority governments except for the whole "I don't want to play anymore" suite of tactics like proroguing and no-confidence votes that send us back to the polls repeatedly in hopes that the electorate will give them enough seats to remove their obligation to cooperate.

And how many elections did the NDP force until the Conservative Majority in 2011? 2004 the NDP voted with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal government, 2006 the NDP voted with the Liberals to defeat the Conservative government, 2008 the NDP voted with the Liberals to defeat the Conservative government. In both 2006 and 2008 the NDP voted with the Conservative government on budget proposals, knifing the Liberal opposition in the back when they were going for a vote of non-confidence.

That's why the Liberals won't consider a coalition with the NDP. The agreement they make on Monday is not good on Tuesday. Thomas Mulcair was in the lead at the beginning of this 2015 election. Then Quebec discovered that what he said in Montreal was not what he said in Toronto or anywhere else in Canada. Mulcair was so sure of his Quebec base that he felt they would choose not to hear him when "he was just practicing politics".

Justin Trudeau, to his credit and my surprise, has pounced on Mulcair's duplicity in every debate. Which is why Justin Trudeau is where he is in the Polls today and Thomas Mulcair is where he is in the Polls today.

The voter in Quebec actually does listen to what politicians say, no matter which of the official languages they use. And Quebec is key to forming the government of Canada.

Eric Grenier, the guy behind 308.com has a series that he's writing for CBC.

Here is what he has to say about the GTA http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-toronto-oct6-1.3259332

Here is what he has to say about the Montreal region http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-montreal-oct2-1.3255234

In the GTA the NDP can win no more than three seats. The seats held by Layton and his wife are both going to be won by the Liberals along with a whole bunch of Conservative seats. Currently, the projection is that the Liberals will win 22 of the 25 seats.

In the Montreal region, the NDP can win no more than 5 seats. Of the 35 seats, the Liberals are on track to win 17, the Bloc will win the remainder.

 

[clu]

And how many elections did the NDP force until the Conservative Majority in 2011?

I think we're agreeing. That's one of those "I don't want to play" tactics I was talking about. Imagine a minority government where dissolution wasn't an option for the opposition.

 

[marsvolta]

maybe the discussion could stop getting railroaded into other topics and stick with the OP?

its a bit of a long discussion with Micheal Harris but some items are very concerning:
- that the conservatives have been bringing in spending measures without any detailed plans on implementation. thus averting any possibility of accounting for such spending until bodies like the treasury board determine how that money got spent. and we all know the number of times we've been hearing that the money didn't get allocated at all!
- that the process of public consultation has been totally scrapped.
- that its been proven that the government has lied on costs such as the F35

these guys work for US. if you had an employee that was in charge of your capital allocation and worked like this then you would fire him. i want to see the details of EVERYTHING my government does because i pay their salaries. no IFs, ANDs OR BUTs.

and if we continue to allow this because "well, the other guys will be worse" then the other guys WILL be worse! because we let them get away with it.

 

[clu]

maybe the discussion could stop getting railroaded into other topics and stick with the OP?

its a bit of a long discussion with Micheal Harris but some items are very concerning:
- that the conservatives have been bringing in spending measures without any detailed plans on implementation. thus averting any possibility of accounting for such spending until bodies like the treasury board determine how that money got spent. and we all know the number of times we've been hearing that the money didn't get allocated at all!
- that the process of public consultation has been totally scrapped.
- that its been proven that the government has lied on costs such as the F35

these guys work for US. if you had an employee that was in charge of your capital allocation and worked like this then you would fire him. i want to see the details of EVERYTHING my government does because i pay their salaries. no IFs, ANDs OR BUTs.

and if we continue to allow this because "well, the other guys will be worse" then the other guys WILL be worse! because we let them get away with it.

It's not off topic; it's two sides of the same coin: there's what he's doing and then there's how he's able to do it. Address how he's able to do it and even if then neither he nor the next guy will be able to continue doing it.

 

[sdw]

I think we're agreeing. That's one of those "I don't want to play" tactics I was talking about. Imagine a minority government where dissolution wasn't an option for the opposition.

That can only happen if enough NDP voters hold their noses and vote for Justin Trudeau's Liberals. The NDP is basically 3 camps. The "Teacher" Socialist who thinks that people will vote NDP if only the party leader will teach the poor under educated souls. The "distribute the wealth" people who are jealous of anyone that has more than what they have. These are the people that key your car and who lead "Collectivism" in the Soviet Union. And then there are the "Entrepreneurial" Socialists who believe that the government should give monopolies to "Select" people. When you hear about corrupt socialist governments, these are the people that make it that way. What can be split off is the "Fellow Travelers" who are members of a group lead by one of the three camps. The example is union members that don't always vote the way their leadership tells them to.

Thomas Mulcair would love to be part of a Liberal - NDP coalition. That way he could vote against the government the day that Trudeau didn't give him what he wants. That's what happened in Greece when the coalition broke because the EU had insisted that Greece must cut it's social welfare programs and begin to pay it's debts. The government desperately needed the EU's money, but the coalition partners still didn't want to admit that the government had no choice but to accept the EU's offer.

That's why the Trudeau Liberals won't consider a coalition with the NDP. It's safer to rely on the Bloc's desire for goodies for Quebec. At least that way Monday's agreement will still be good on Tuesday.

The polls are saying that most Canadians understand this and that the people that absolutely don't want another Harper government will vote Liberal if Trudeau's Liberals are still in the lead or second place on October 18th.

 

[Lo-ki]

The polls are saying that most Canadians understand this and that the people that absolutely don't want another Harper government will vote Liberal if Trudeau's Liberals are still in the lead or second place on October 18th.

Hmmmm the Polls also said Christy Clack had LITTLE or NO chances of being elected



British Columbia general election, 2013
"Despite their victory, the Liberals had been consistently several points behind the opposition New Democrats in every public opinion poll throughout the campaign. Even poll results released on the very last day of the campaign suggested that the New Democrats had an eight to nine percentage point margin over the Liberals."

 

[hornygandalf]

The polls are saying that most Canadians understand this and that the people that absolutely don't want another Harper government will vote Liberal if Trudeau's Liberals are still in the lead or second place on October 18th.

It will be interesting to see if the polls do in fact reflect what happens on Election Day. I'm not sure that is the case. The electorate and people's views are shifting and it is becoming more complex than polls seem to be adequately able to pick up. Strategic voting will play a role, but I'm not sure how much of a role. There is still a VERY clear danger that the Conservatives could win at least a minority government with a lower percentage of votes than in 2011. Harper is clearly a danger to Canada and has a track record to prove it (economically as well as lack of transparency and scandals within the ranks). Are Trudeau or Mulcair better? Probably, at least for a term or two, but with flaws also, though not anywhere near as damaging as some of the negative adverts suggest. The one I'm concerned about is Elizabeth May as she has been a very effective alternative voice in Parliament, and she needs a few more Green Party members to support her. She provides and important alternative voice.

 

[sdw]

Hmmmm the Polls also said Christy Clack had LITTLE or NO chances of being elected



British Columbia general election, 2013
"Despite their victory, the Liberals had been consistently several points behind the opposition New Democrats in every public opinion poll throughout the campaign. Even poll results released on the very last day of the campaign suggested that the New Democrats had an eight to nine percentage point margin over the Liberals."

The pollsters discovered to their dismay that you can't count people that don't vote.

One of the questions on well designed polls these days is "Who did you vote for last Election?" That question helps establish that the pollster is talking to an actual voter and not one of the many 18 to 34 year olds that have never voted.

In the Alberta election, some pollsters had the result pretty close to the actual election results. One pollster had it inside their margin of error.

 

[sdw]

It will be interesting to see if the polls do in fact reflect what happens on Election Day. I'm not sure that is the case. The electorate and people's views are shifting and it is becoming more complex than polls seem to be adequately able to pick up. Strategic voting will play a role, but I'm not sure how much of a role. There is still a VERY clear danger that the Conservatives could win at least a minority government with a lower percentage of votes than in 2011. Harper is clearly a danger to Canada and has a track record to prove it (economically as well as lack of transparency and scandals within the ranks). Are Trudeau or Mulcair better? Probably, at least for a term or two, but with flaws also, though not anywhere near as damaging as some of the negative adverts suggest. The one I'm concerned about is Elizabeth May as she has been a very effective alternative voice in Parliament, and she needs a few more Green Party members to support her. She provides and important alternative voice.

Elizabeth May needs a miracle to retain her own seat. Elizabeth May had the media giving her preferential coverage and making her look much more effective than she was. After the Press Dinner, that stopped because they had reason to seriously doubt her judgement and sanity.

I think that one of the things driving the Anybody But Harper movement is the Conservative's negative advertising. Right at the beginning of the campaign the ABH movement was already in action. When it looked like the NDP was going to lead, the ABH movement was prepared to hold their noses and vote NDP. That made some of the early polling a little biased to the NDP. Then - the debates happened. Justin Trudeau pounced on the duplicity of the NDP and especially on the record of Thomas Mulcair when he was a Cabinet Minister in Quebec. Two weeks ago the Bloc started to drift up in support at the cost of the NDP. At the last French Language Debate, Justin Trudeau hardly acknowledged Harper. He and Duceppe went after Mulcair. Right now the NDP can't win, but they can make the Liberals lose. That's why Justin Trudeau is working Montreal and Toronto.

 

[sdw]

The Stephen Harper Fear Index

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/feschuk-the-stephen-harper-fear-index/

Feschuk: The Stephen Harper fear index

An A-Z guide of everything the PM tells us to be petrified of

Scott Feschuk

October 7, 2015

Stephen Harper’s leadership philosophy is clear: In troubled times, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to rally the people of Canada, bring us all together—and provide us with many, many reasons to freak the hell out. In such matters, Harper takes inspiration from Franklin Roosevelt: The only thing we have to fear is this exhaustive list of terrifying things to fear.

Alas, it can be hard to keep track of everything we’re supposed to be petrified of. So here is an alphabetical reminder of the threats to our country, according to the PM. Tape it to the fridge and consult it, should you ever begin to feel that things in Canada are going semi-okay.

Deficits. As Harper tells it, a budget shortfall will instantly “wreck” the Canadian economy. Sure, Harper ran deficits himself—but his were different. Think of it in terms of a soap opera, where the good guy is invariably revealed to have an evil twin. The bad egg is usually distinguished by a menacing facial characteristic of some kind. And look, check it out: Trudeau’s proposed deficits are rocking a goatee.

Enemies of Israel. This subset includes both genuine and imagined enemies of Israel, up to, and including, people who have tweeted something snarky about Seth Rogen.

Europe. Once a lovely continent known for its tourist attractions and abundant berets, Europe has been reduced by Harper to a threatening symbol of economic turmoil—a contagion that must be quarantined. Do not visit Europe the continent. Do not listen to Europe the band. DO NOT PRONOUNCE EUROPE THE WORD. It’s like Beetlejuice: Say it out loud three times and—poof!—the Greek finance minister will appear in your kitchen and max out your credit card.

Immigrants. The Conservatives are vowing to create a tip line so Canadians can rat out their neighbours to the RCMP for “barbaric cultural practices.” I say it’s about time: My neighbour Brian is of Asian descent and, one afternoon, I saw him barbecuing with his shirt off. Not in my Canada, señor.

Harper’s message is clear: People who come here from other countries are to be welcomed and accepted, unless they say, do or cook anything that seems—and I’m paraphrasing here—“kinda weird.” If nothing else, this campaign has proved that Harper would have made a great dad in the 1950s. Now, now, Beaver. Your school chum says she’s a grateful immigrant following her cultural traditions. But wouldn’t it be doing everyone a favour to have her detained by police, just in case?

Marijuana. Harper tells us weed is “infinitely worse” than tobacco. And he’s right. Smoking kills 40,000 Canadians a year—but that’s nothing compared to the staggering cost of potheads sitting quietly on the couch for three hours.

Niqab. As a Conservative, the PM is a reliable defender of individual freedom, except when confronted by a clear and present threat to national security, such as a couple of women choosing to cover their faces. The veil is terrifying, because there could be anything under there. You might find a person. You might find a different person. Or maybe three young boys stacked on top of each other, trying to order a beer at a strip club. It is therefore in Canada’s best interest to rely on Stephen Harper to set out a national dress code: Ill-fitting blazers for all! Also, remember the haircut you got as a seven-year-old? You now have to keep it for life.

In Harper’s world, we should be suspicious of everyone—except, apparently, political leaders who spent the past decade telling us to focus only on the economy, but who are now suddenly telling us to wet our pants over veiled ladies.

And let’s remember: Harper has a perfect track record at identifying cultural threats. He warned that same-sex weddings would gravely undermine the institution of marriage. Had we listened to him, we wouldn’t today be watching helplessly as millions of Canadians lobby for the right to marry their appliances.

 

[storm rider]

The Stephen Harper Fear Index

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/feschuk-the-stephen-harper-fear-index/

What a surprise....even more leftist media dogma trying to influence the election.....it has been happening since before the writ dropped

SR

 

[Bridge]

Talk about dogma … how can the conservatives claim to have added millions of jobs to the economy when really the numbers are due to of the psychological effect of the move into the expansionary phase of the business cycle.

 

[sdw]

Hmmmm the Polls also said Christy Clack had LITTLE or NO chances of being elected



British Columbia general election, 2013
"Despite their victory, the Liberals had been consistently several points behind the opposition New Democrats in every public opinion poll throughout the campaign. Even poll results released on the very last day of the campaign suggested that the New Democrats had an eight to nine percentage point margin over the Liberals."

EKOs put up a link to a study they did on polling failure http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/accurate_polling_flawed_forecast.pdf

Basically the error rate is because of mistaken weighting. People that have only a cellphone are less inclined to vote than people with landlines or landlines and cellphones. People that have a lesser amount of education are less inclined to vote than people with college or university. People that are young are less inclined to vote than people that are old.

So, if the pollster puts the same weight on a 19 year old, with grade 12 and only a cellphone as they put on a 65 year old with a Phd, a landline at home and at work plus a cellphone - - the pollster will be wrong 20 times out of 20.

It's actually easy to understand the why of it. A 19 year old with grade 12 who is taking a full course load at community college or university while working part time at Starbucks and McDonalds simply doesn't have the time to vote. That 19 year old may have expressed their strong support for the Greens and NDP, both to a pollster and on social media - but isn't likely to vote. A 65 year old who is still working at home because they love their job has all the time they need to vote, besides being fairly committed to the party they support.

 

[morementum]

its a statistical fact that the conservative parties base are old white guys who live in the countryside.

if you vote for a party like the conservatives then you are either stupid or wealthy.

vote for gross domestic happiness!

I am a young non-white and I don't live in the country. I vote for logical platforms that will not place penalties on success, will not pander to those who don't wish to contribute, will not allow political correctness to run amok and will not worry about what a bunch of people who feel life "owes them a living" dictate public policy. I doubt that the Conservatives will win the election. I very much expect that we will have to let some people go as we understand both of the alternatives will attack either the corporate or individual tax bases on companies/people who have become successful. That will be unfortunate for those who lose their jobs but that is how it works. If things get too crazy, will just shelter all the income anyway so not sure who will pay for all these promises Mulcair and Trudeau are making but I guess there are enough of you who believe the myth that corporations and the "1%" are bottomless pits versus highly mobile and fickle entities that will simply evaporate if taken for granted.

Good luck with what you seemingly want. You will more than likely get what you deserve. Will be tougher to enjoy your hobby if you have no money but, hey, it is the ideals that count for you I suspect.

 

[sdw]

I am a young non-white and I don't live in the country. I vote for logical platforms that will not place penalties on success, will not pander to those who don't wish to contribute, will not allow political correctness to run amok and will not worry about what a bunch of people who feel life "owes them a living" dictate public policy. I doubt that the Conservatives will win the election. I very much expect that we will have to let some people go as we understand both of the alternatives will attack either the corporate or individual tax bases on companies/people who have become successful. That will be unfortunate for those who lose their jobs but that is how it works. If things get too crazy, will just shelter all the income anyway so not sure who will pay for all these promises Mulcair and Trudeau are making but I guess there are enough of you who believe the myth that corporations and the "1%" are bottomless pits versus highly mobile and fickle entities that will simply evaporate if taken for granted.

Good luck with what you seemingly want. You will more than likely get what you deserve. Will be tougher to enjoy your hobby if you have no money but, hey, it is the ideals that count for you I suspect.

Actually, there is currently a statistical tie between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP has already lost most of what they could lose to the Liberals with the NDP Voters that are willing to vote strategically in the ROC (Rest of Canada), in Quebec very substantial numbers have moved from the NDP to the Bloc, but, some in Montreal have moved to the Liberals and a few have moved to the Conservatives.

EKOs, Mainstreet and Nanos are all reporting similar results in Quebec. In fact, people were a little perturbed when EKOs reported a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec. The Liberals are likely to win at least 17 seats, the Conservatives no more than 10 seats and the remainder is likely to go to the Bloc. (75 seats in Quebec) The GTA (Toronto) is polling as mostly Liberal with 2 or 3 Conservative seats possible and 1 or 2 NDP seats possible. The Liberals are likely to win 22 of the 25 seats in the GTA.

It's quite possible that at least a minority Conservative government will be elected. Of course that means another election in January 2016. The polling doesn't support a majority Conservative government - but - it's not impossible.

It's down to if the loudly anti-Harper vote actually gets out and votes for the Liberals this election. They won't accomplish their desire if they vote Green or NDP and of course it's entirely possible that they won't get out and vote at all. That's what happened in 2011. The 31% of voters that vote and vote Conservative did get out and vote. The 31% of voters became 39% of those who voted. Both the NDP and Liberal supporters undervoted. The 36% NDP support became 30% of those who voted and the Liberals did far worse. Thomas Mulcair has lost Quebec and has even lost the seats that Layton and his wife had in the GTA.

Right now, it's likely that the NDP will be reduced back to the 29 seats that they had in 2008. The Bloc is on track to have 48 seats, the Liberals are on track to have at least 127 seats, the Conservatives are on track to have at least 126 seats and the remaining 8 seats can be won by the Liberals if there is no vote splitting or the Conservatives if there is vote splitting.

It looks like we are going to have a minority government if things don't change in a large way in the final weeks.

 

[steiln]

wow looks close. I'm with the ABA [any thing but Adolph] vote

 

[marsvolta]

I am a young non-white and I don't live in the country. I vote for logical platforms that will not place penalties on success, will not pander to those who don't wish to contribute, will not allow political correctness to run amok and will not worry about what a bunch of people who feel life "owes them a living" dictate public policy. I doubt that the Conservatives will win the election. I very much expect that we will have to let some people go as we understand both of the alternatives will attack either the corporate or individual tax bases on companies/people who have become successful. That will be unfortunate for those who lose their jobs but that is how it works. If things get too crazy, will just shelter all the income anyway so not sure who will pay for all these promises Mulcair and Trudeau are making but I guess there are enough of you who believe the myth that corporations and the "1%" are bottomless pits versus highly mobile and fickle entities that will simply evaporate if taken for granted.

Good luck with what you seemingly want. You will more than likely get what you deserve. Will be tougher to enjoy your hobby if you have no money but, hey, it is the ideals that count for you I suspect.

well, frankly mormentum, from any review of your posts... "logical" is either not one of your strong points or you simply don't read much. here are some further ideas to ponder in case its simply the latter.

1) "will not place penalties on success"
i love this one because given i'm in the top 5% of wage earners i guess i'm a success. and yet i traditonally pay about an 8% effective tax rate. with plenty of stupid opportunity to hide money. thats half of the lowest tax bracket. and actually, we're mostly talking about something well studied here... the innate feeling of entitlement that comes with success. what i find amazing about the whole phonomena is that the movers and shakers in our ecomony seem to think that they made all this money on their own! in the woods! no, actually they used canadian infrastructure, canadian resources and canadian labor. all heavily subsidized by tax payers. what people need to realize is that when a business is successful in this country then our society is a share holder and when profits start coming in then taxation is dividend payment.

2) "will not pander to those who don't wish to contribute"
where are these people you talk about? there seems to be this constant fear among a small percentage of the population concerning an even smaller percentage of the population. and welfare is a provincial matter in any case isn't it? while i leave it to you to research i'm reminded that, here in BC, the last time the ruling NDP was ousted by the Liberals and Canwest Global over claims of widespread welfare fraud it was never reported that welfare cost the province .3% of its budget and that 40% of recipients were disabled. most people work hard and everyone works even harder when presented with equitable opportunities.

3) "will not allow political correctness to run amok"
if by "political correctness" you mean "using words or behavior which will not offend people" then yes, lets allow that to run amok. whats wrong with being nice to each other?

4) "people who feel life owes them a living"
again, back to 1). this has been studied extensively and it turns out the wealthier you are the more of a sense of entitlement you have.