Yeah, I believe a traditional part of Guy Fawkes celebrations is burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Yes, however, according to Wikipedia, Guy Fawkes' image has undergone a bit of a makeover in recent years, and in 2002 he was number 30 on the BBC's list of 100 Greatest Britons. So, maybe some of that love has transferred to this side of the Atlantic. Although, after looking up the details of drawing and quartering, I think we should probably take the revolution in a non-explosive direction.
Yeah, I believe a traditional part of Guy Fawkes celebrations is burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Yes, however, according to Wikipedia, Guy Fawkes' image has undergone a bit of a makeover in recent years, and in 2002 he was number 30 on the BBC's list of 100 Greatest Britons. So, maybe some of that love has transferred to this side of the Atlantic. Although, after looking up the details of drawing and quartering, I think we should probably take the revolution in a non-explosive direction.
You... you guys wouldn't burn us in effigy, would you?
Yeah, I believe a traditional part of Guy Fawkes celebrations is burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Yes, however, according to Wikipedia, Guy Fawkes' image has undergone a bit of a makeover in recent years, and in 2002 he was number 30 on the BBC's list of 100 Greatest Britons. So, maybe some of that love has transferred to this side of the Atlantic. Although, after looking up the details of drawing and quartering, I think we should probably take the revolution in a non-explosive direction.
You... you guys wouldn't burn us in effigy, would you?
Only if you fail to set off the casks of gun power you store under parliament.
See in a system where if a confidence vote fails you have to dissolve parliament it makes sense that everyone is going to vote on party lines... Especially in a minority situation. It sucks but it is part of our system.
Fuck every one of you lazy entitled assholes. Get the fuck off the couch and vote. It takes half an hour. There's no excuse.
I decided to quote Azio's original response to my post, because while I think it spun off in an interesting direction, I'd rather address...whatever it is he's going off about here.
I do vote, buddy. Every election. I haven't missed one since I turned 18. I consider it a civic responsibility, and I take it very seriously. And while I appreciate that I live in a country where I'm free to declare who I want running our affairs, it is a constant source of disappointment and frustration that our system is so inept at servicing each individual's politics.
Looking at the election results going into the past back to the 1997 election inclusively, no winning MP (regardless of party) in my riding has managed to accumulate at least 50% of the riding's votes. To me that says that there's a disenfranchised majority of voters in this riding, and there has been for over 10 years. Maybe longer too, but I don't have the time to go digging for more results.
There are certainly better systems out there than what we're using. I know proportional systems get trotted around a lot, but the ones that have been presented in the past really do rely on people buying into political parties as a whole controlling things and dropping the more ostensibly local political angle. This also hurts your regional parties as has been mentioned.
Personally I like a lot of what I see in the Australian parliamentary system. They use a number of preferential voting systems which pass votes around depending on rankings rather than a first past the post system. I would love the opportunity to be able to have my vote counted based on my rankings rather than a straight up "You voted for the guy who got 9%. Best of luck next year." It would certainly go a long way in helping to relieve the repeated sensation that your vote doesn't count beyond the small boost in advertising funds it buys the party for the next election.
Well apparently the guy on the bike jumped on the car and tried to fight him or something.
I dunno its hard to place judgment on the whole thing without knowing the full details. If someone jumped on the hood of my car and tried to fight me I might try to shake them off too.
You'd try to shake them off by speeding into the wrong lane and essentially try and kill them by bashing them into things at the side of the road? Really? REALLY?
Besides, the cyclist didn't jump onto his car according to any witness report.
From what I hear, Bryant initially hit the cyclist with his car. "Discussion" ensued and then he tried to drive away (hit and run). The cyclist held on to the side of his car to try and keep him from getting away. Bryant accelerated, swerved into the opposite lane and tried to slam the cyclist into things at the side of the road.
I hope they hang him.
I see the event from a completely different point of view.
#1 Fact: Sheppard (Cyclist) was in the back of a police cruiser barely an hour before this event takes place due to a domestic disturbance. Apparently Sheppard had abit of a drinking problem.
Monday night’s incident began in the early evening, when Mr. Sheppard was kicked out of his former girlfriend’s apartment on George Street, in the Dundas Street East and Sherbourne Street area. Neighbour Annette Wabie said Mr. Sheppard was “drunk as a clunk,” though a police source said he’d only had a few drinks.
Whether alcohol actually played a role in the Bryant Bike Tragedy on Monday, is not yet clear.
We're learning more about the cyclist that died Monday night following the alleged altercation between himself and former Attorney General Michael Bryant.
33-year-old Darcy Allan Sheppard was a father of four, a bike courier, and an amateur stand-up comic, but friends and family say he had struggled with substance abuse, among other issues, since he was a kid.
Reports suggest that after eight days of sobriety, he may have succumbed to his addiction just an hour before the incident on Bloor Street Monday night.
Sheppard was thought to have been drinking when he was confronted by police less than an hour before he died.
The conflicting stories are between Toronto Police and Darcy Allan Sheppard's former roommate.
The old roommate says Sheppard showed up outside her George Street apartment where Sheppard used to live with her and his girlfriend.
She says he had relapsed and was drunk, and that police on patrol confronted him and ordered him to leave.
She says officers sent Sheppard on his way despite her telling them he was drunk and couldn't ride his bike home.
According to her story officers would not let Sheppard back upstairs.
Police give an entirely different account of the story, saying a woman inside the apartment made a call to police.
Police say, the woman on the phone said Sheppard's girlfriend had told Sheppard to leave several times.
Police say that's when they showed up and asked Sheppard to leave. While Sheppard might have been drunk, police aren't commenting on the issue until toxicology reports come back.
Darcy Allan Sheppard, 33, was wanted by local police for 61 outstanding criminal warrants, many relating to cheque fraud.
"He was fraudulently passing cheques during a brief period in 2002," Edmonton city police Staff Sgt. Bill Allen told Sun Media yesterday, adding many of the cases occurred at Money Mart locations in the city.
Allen said Sheppard was released on bail in 2003, but never showed up for a scheduled court appearance.
After his disappearance, Edmonton city police issued a warning to the public that Sheppard had a history of violence.
Yesterday, Toronto police said Sheppard had been arrested Monday about 9 p.m. for fighting at his girlfriend's apartment.
Sheppard later got into a fight with a homeless man outside the building, and at one point was sitting in the back of a police cruiser. He was then released without charge.
Later that night, he got into some sort of altercation with Michael Bryant, who was driving a black Saab convertible with a female passenger, which ended in a minor collision on a downtown Toronto street at about 9:45 p.
m.
So here is what I personally think happened:
Sheppard, still drunk, released by cops (this type of shit happens ALL THE TIME in downtown Toronto, ESPECIALLY the area the cyclist was picked up in. Sheppard leaves in a rage.
Minor accident happens with Bryant (it's not clear whose fault it was, but my money is that it was the Sheppard's fault).
Bryant was with his wife in a top down convertable. Sheppard started banging on Bryant's car damaging it (this was reported in several papers). Bryant freaks out fearing for his safety and that of his wife from the raging drunkard and tries to drive away. Sheppard in a drunken rage refuses to let go of the car and then bad shit goes down leaving cyclist dead.
You have to remember the man was with his wife, had no protection in his car, and had a guy that was very possibly roaring drunk damaging Bryant's car (damagign car AFTER the accident -- Sheppard was hitting Bryant's car in a rage), and then getting all up close and personal at Bryant's side door.
This again is a guy with more than 60 charges against him.
I'm not saying Bryant acted appropriately but I do think there is definatley some room for "reasonable doubt" once this comes to a jury. Sounds to me more like self defence rather than anything.
I live in downtown Toronto myself and I've seen altercations involving people with addiction issues ... I had an altercation MYSELF very similar to Bryant although I wasn't in a car. I can tell you 100 percent that if I'm with my wife and a crazy addict person starts getting all up in my face, I'd probaly try to get away too especially if I was in a car. Alot of the crackheads and addicts in the core just don't give a shit and WILL hurt you if you don't protect yourself.
*shrug*
Saying that this is a situation of a "poor" cyclist that got cruely run over by Bryant is totally overlooking some of the facts of the situation.
Aye, the more information coming out about this, the less cut-and-dry it's looking.
Hell from what I read in the paper today there were some witness reports saying Sheppard grabbed onto the steering wheel of the car.
It's pretty convenient in these situations to assume the guy in the car is always in the wrong. I'm curious to see the outcome of the trial.
Al_wat on
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
So, massive Conservative losses in Québec
Not exactly ''massive''. At most, thats a loss of 3 seats. Most of their seats were won by very comfortable margins. You dont loose those kind of seats by loosing only 5 pts with the bloc being. at most, stable.
I think Beauport is the only seat they're certain of loosing. Cannon and Lebel might or might not hold on, depending how strong their personal popularity is.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
A lot of people don't realize how little this election is changing in terms of number of seats. A few ridings are drifting towards being battleground ridings, but really, just like a US Congress election maybe 5% of the seats are actually up for grabs. Incumbents have an obscenely massive re-election rate.
Just listening to the CBC hourly update podcast...
Are Harper and his ilk actually trying to argue that the Charter of Rights should be superseded by government policy (aka Crown Prerogative)? That's fucking ridiculously stupid!
What the hell is their issue with not bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada?
A lot of people don't realize how little this election is changing in terms of number of seats. A few ridings are drifting towards being battleground ridings, but really, just like a US Congress election maybe 5% of the seats are actually up for grabs. Incumbents have an obscenely massive re-election rate.
Yeah, but it shows a trend of weakening support for the Conservatives. Quite simply, if they don't manage to convert their minority to a majority in the next election, Harper is done and the party will likely end up taking a bigger hit.
I don't think they have a chance of holding on though. The Liberals are still not in good shape, but there is a lot of ammunition to use against the Conservatives.
Just listening to the CBC hourly update podcast...
Are Harper and his ilk actually trying to argue that the Charter of Rights should be superseded by government policy (aka Crown Prerogative)? That's fucking ridiculously stupid!
What the hell is their issue with not bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada?
Harper plays to his base. His base would be perfectly A OK with us shitting on our child soldier treaty obligations and hanging Khadr on Parliament Hill for being an arab terrorist. So Harper will ignore the laws he swore to uphold and will continue to stall.
Also his government has a fucking horrible track record of helping our citizens out if they happen to have brown skin, which you may have noticed from the Kenya fiascoes.
Just listening to the CBC hourly update podcast...
Are Harper and his ilk actually trying to argue that the Charter of Rights should be superseded by government policy (aka Crown Prerogative)? That's fucking ridiculously stupid!
What the hell is their issue with not bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada?
There's a certain element in the Conservative party that probably would like nothing more than if there was no charter of rights.
Just listening to the CBC hourly update podcast...
Are Harper and his ilk actually trying to argue that the Charter of Rights should be superseded by government policy (aka Crown Prerogative)? That's fucking ridiculously stupid!
What the hell is their issue with not bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada?
There's a certain element in the Conservative party that probably would like nothing more than if there was no charter of rights.
Legislating from the bench! Activist judges! Parliament should legislate the rights of minorities! Judicial review is fascism! IGNORANT FEAR MONGERING!!!
Fuck every one of you lazy entitled assholes. Get the fuck off the couch and vote. It takes half an hour. There's no excuse.
I decided to quote Azio's original response to my post, because while I think it spun off in an interesting direction, I'd rather address...whatever it is he's going off about here.
I do vote, buddy. Every election. I haven't missed one since I turned 18. I consider it a civic responsibility, and I take it very seriously. And while I appreciate that I live in a country where I'm free to declare who I want running our affairs, it is a constant source of disappointment and frustration that our system is so inept at servicing each individual's politics.
Looking at the election results going into the past back to the 1997 election inclusively, no winning MP (regardless of party) in my riding has managed to accumulate at least 50% of the riding's votes. To me that says that there's a disenfranchised majority of voters in this riding, and there has been for over 10 years. Maybe longer too, but I don't have the time to go digging for more results.
There are certainly better systems out there than what we're using. I know proportional systems get trotted around a lot, but the ones that have been presented in the past really do rely on people buying into political parties as a whole controlling things and dropping the more ostensibly local political angle. This also hurts your regional parties as has been mentioned.
Personally I like a lot of what I see in the Australian parliamentary system. They use a number of preferential voting systems which pass votes around depending on rankings rather than a first past the post system. I would love the opportunity to be able to have my vote counted based on my rankings rather than a straight up "You voted for the guy who got 9%. Best of luck next year." It would certainly go a long way in helping to relieve the repeated sensation that your vote doesn't count beyond the small boost in advertising funds it buys the party for the next election.
I am quoting you for truth.
In my last provincial election I voted for STV and my riding's Green MLA. Later that evening I eagerly awaited the news on how STV did, switching from one news coverage to the next trying to find out. Finally, the results came up and not even what seemed like 2 seconds later after that devastating blow, I had to listen to some political commentary on how it was the fault of people like me who voted BC Green that the BC NDP didn't take more seats than the BC Liberals. I was the split vote. I was the wasted vote. And BC STV went from around 58% for last time to 39% for.
Voter turn out dropped from 58% to 50% as well to boot. I can't help but wonder if that 8% felt after the 2005 election like I did after the 2009 election. So, to add insult to injury, if only 50% showed up and of those 50% who showed up, lets guess at least a simple majority of that had a vote that counted, that means it took only somewhere between 26% - 50% of BC voters to end up with our current MLAs, meaning that there is another 50% - 74% of BC voters whose vote didn't count for anything - 50% of BC voters admittedly their own fault it didn't count but how many times do you suppose they had to put up with their vote not being counted? BC STV should have been implemented when it received 58%, the "needed" 60% was/is bullshit when it only takes 50.1% of the available voter turn out to get a MLA in a riding.
All too many people I talked to afterwards about it, I was surprised how many didn't even understand what BC STV was and when I explained it to them like it was setting priorities on your grocery list items or a top ten list of your favorite things, they went "Oh shit, I should've voted for it." Those who said it was too complicated, I just said sharing life with others peacefully is more complicated then a simple X beside a name, suddenly it was like the light when on for them too and I would hear another "Oh shit, I should have voted for it."
Azio, there is a lot of your posts I find myself agreeing with but unfortunately, suck it up and vote just doesn't seem to be working under the current system. Its not apathy I have right now, I am just at a loss as to what else I could do to peacefully change the system for the better so it can have more respect for the voter as a intelligent, even semi-educated, human being.
As far as federal politics go these days, I will never forgive the Harper / Cons for pro roguing in the manner in which they did, it runs contrary to everything a non-confidence vote and/or a coalition is supposed to be. Fuck, why didn't they just make a coalition themselves and form a majority with some other party people voted for. Grr... I hope Harper and Company's karma pays dearly for that bull shit. As much as I love her for eating that seal, my regard for Michelle is always going to be tainted by her having not given the coalition a chance and if it didn't work out then letting us the voters decide.
As much as we can hate on Michelle for not granting the coalition the chance to govern, she did follow pretty strong precedent around the commonwealth in granting the wishes of the PM.
As much as we can hate on Michelle for not granting the coalition the chance to govern, she did follow pretty strong precedent around the commonwealth in granting the wishes of the PM.
Harper should've never have asked to prorogue in the first place. He gave terrible advice, and no matter which way the GG eventually ruled, it would've damaged the Crown - which it did.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Liberal Party pollster Michael Marzolini told the Grits at last week's national summer retreat in Sudbury, Ont., that a total of 46 per cent of Canadians want either a Liberal minority or majority government, compared to 38 per cent who said they want a Conservative minority or a majority government, according to Liberal sources.
Mr. Marzolini, chairman of Pollara, declined to discuss his company's polling numbers, but Liberal sources told The Hill Times that according to the numbers he presented, 24 per cent want a majority Liberal government and 22 per cent want a Liberal minority government. In the case of Conservatives, Mr. Marzolini said 28 per cent want a Tory majority government and 10 per cent a minority government. The poll was conducted in July and August.
In the 416-area code, the Liberals are ahead of the Conservatives at 56 per cent support while the Conservatives are at 29 per cent, the NDP at 11 per cent and the Green Party at three per cent.
In the 905-area code, Mr. Marzolini put the Liberals at 44 per cent, the Conservatives at 39 per cent, the NDP at 15 per cent, and the Green Party at three per cent.
In the 519 area code, the Conservatives were ahead of all the parties with 44 per cent support, Liberals at 32 per cent, the New Democrats at 20 per cent and the Green Party at two per cent.
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
Polls are pretty meaningless at this point, but I don't think it's surprising that those numbers indicate the likelihood of another minority. What concerns me is that the way the splits are going, the Liberals could form the government while the Tories win the popular vote. Everyone with half a brain knows the popular vote is meaningless, and I'm relatively certain we've had at least one instance in our history where the party that won the most seats didn't get the most votes, but I fear that won't stop the vocal minority from incessant bitching about how the results are "undemocratic".
If there's another election, I sort of think many NDP supporters will actually vote Liberal as an anti-Harper measure.
Really? I imagine that kind of thinking only holds for so long....
"Anyone but Harper" is a fairly appealing voting strategy for a lot of people. Strategic voting sucks, but sometimes its about getting the lesser evil.
Corvus on
:so_raven:
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I'm relatively certain we've had at least one instance in our history where the party that won the most seats didn't get the most votes
It happened 4 times in canadian history, twice for both the Liberals and the PC.
In 1896, the Liberals got 41.4% and 117 seats while the Conservatives got 48.2% and 86 seats
In 1926, the Liberals got 42.9% and 110 seats while the Conservatives got 45.4% and 91 seats
In 1957, the PC got 38.8% and 111 seats while the Liberals got 40.8% and 104 seats
In 1979, the PC got 35.9% and 136 seats while the Liberals got 40.1% and 111 seats.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
I'm relatively certain we've had at least one instance in our history where the party that won the most seats didn't get the most votes
It happened 4 times in canadian history, twice for both the Liberals and the PC.
In 1896, the Liberals got 41.4% and 117 seats while the Conservatives got 48.2% and 86 seats
In 1926, the Liberals got 42.9% and 110 seats while the Conservatives got 45.4% and 91 seats
In 1957, the PC got 38.8% and 111 seats while the Liberals got 40.8% and 104 seats
In 1979, the PC got 35.9% and 136 seats while the Liberals got 40.1% and 111 seats.
'94 is close to being a 5th case : the PQ won by a massive 30 seats plarality but got only 0.35% more than the Liberals in the popular vote.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
It just goes to show how the popular vote is more or less meaningless. As it should be. Just because some ridings are voting landslides for certain parties doesn't reflect the voting trends of other ridings.
The problem is how MPs are becoming increasingly restricted from fighting for the interests of their ridings, and how frequently the only regions that are represented well in national programs are those of the ruling party. Harper's tight-fisted rule over the government caused Flaherty, who was elected from a blue-collar manufacturing region of Ontario to say that Ontario is a dead end for manufacturing.
And Flaherty is most definitely going to be re-elected by the poor bastards that shlup up the good blue word.
It just goes to show how the popular vote is more or less meaningless. As it should be. Just because some ridings are voting landslides for certain parties doesn't reflect the voting trends of other ridings.
The problem is how MPs are becoming increasingly restricted from fighting for the interests of their ridings, and how frequently the only regions that are represented well in national programs are those of the ruling party. Harper's tight-fisted rule over the government caused Flaherty, who was elected from a blue-collar manufacturing region of Ontario to say that Ontario is a dead end for manufacturing.
And Flaherty is most definitely going to be re-elected by the poor bastards that shlup up the good blue word.
Speaking as a member of Flaherty's riding, a lot of people wound up voting for him because he seemed to be the most coherent candidate at the town hall meetings.
If anybody had shown up and been able to present a strong argument about how they would represent the concerns of the durham region (which is fucking hurt thanks to the problems at the Oshawa GM plant) and combined it with how he basicly pissed all over the province his riding in I can all but guarantee that flaherty would be out on his ass.
The other end of it is that you can't turn on the radio without having to listen to conservative blitherings about how terrible the liberals are. They don't ever say what the Conservative party will do when elected of course; that would require them to have a visible plan for the future and campaign promises.
Ok Pa forums... I am a 28 year old Montrealer moved to Calgary... Apart for the tories who should i vote for?
The liberals? I find that the party was in power wayyy to long and that bred apathy towards voters at the best or corruption at the worst. After Jean Cretien left the party infighting blew the party apart... Electing Mr grenn-shift Dion that could not clearly explain his plan exept that it targeted the west outright was not a good idea..
The Ndp? I like Jack Layton... What i don't like is the way they are married to the labor unions and southern Ontario... Again most of there policies are targeted to Ontario/Quebec
Greens? Any party that revolves around one single issue will not get my vote. I think the enviroment is important but not more so then foreign relations or inter province relations.
Voted Con. provincially just because the MP in my riding is great and has been pushing to get a better police presence and a new community centre built... Spend like 30 min talking to the guy when he rang my door.
So why assert that the Liberal held power for too long to consider voting for them?
If your local MLA was good enough to convince you to vote for a party that has held power for 38 straight years and shows many signs of corruption thanks to that constant run, why not get to know the local candidates and make a decision based on them, not on gross generalizations about the parties as a whole?
Senjutsu on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Ok Pa forums... I am a 28 year old Montrealer moved to Calgary... Apart for the tories who should i vote for?
The liberals? I find that the party was in power wayyy to long and that bred apathy towards voters at the best or corruption at the worst. After Jean Cretien left the party infighting blew the party apart... Electing Mr grenn-shift Dion that could not clearly explain his plan exept that it targeted the west outright was not a good idea..
The Ndp? I like Jack Layton... What i don't like is the way they are married to the labor unions and southern Ontario... Again most of there policies are targeted to Ontario/Quebec
Greens? Any party that revolves around one single issue will not get my vote. I think the enviroment is important but not more so then foreign relations or inter province relations.
So who else to vote for?
If you're focusing on the party, you might be in trouble finding one you like. You might want to look at the individual MPs for each of the parties, find out their stances on things and then decide whether you'd like them representing you (combined a bit with what party you'd be electing).
Well the problem i have with that is for the most part every MP has to vote the party line if not they get back benched or kicked out... So what's the point? As for the cons here in Alb. i have only been here going on 3 years so I am not as up to date as I could be but there are no glairing scandals as there where with the federal libs (gun registry, sponsorship scandal etc..)
Well the problem i have with that is for the most part every MP has to vote the party line if not they get back benched or kicked out... So what's the point?
See, that's what I've been saying. Join my party and run in your riding so you can vote for yourself. Or you can vote based on which party you want to get an extra $1.75, 'cause no matter who you vote for, your MP will be the Conservative candidate. Tory seats in Calgary are quite possibly the safest in the country. You could slap a blue shirt on a monkey and it would still take >50% of the vote... which is actually something I'd like to see them try.
The one part I'll never understand about albertans is how they can belive that the conservatives truly care at the federal level about them. Harper knows that theres all of about nothing he can do to damage his standing in the province so he's never going to actually bother to insure that there concerns are taken care of beyond the token level. It's much more in his interest to whore himself out to the voters in ontario and quebec, since the lions share of parliament seats can be found out there.
Seriously: why the hell are you people so intractable in this regard?
Posts
You... you guys wouldn't burn us in effigy, would you?
Only if you fail to set off the casks of gun power you store under parliament.
I do vote, buddy. Every election. I haven't missed one since I turned 18. I consider it a civic responsibility, and I take it very seriously. And while I appreciate that I live in a country where I'm free to declare who I want running our affairs, it is a constant source of disappointment and frustration that our system is so inept at servicing each individual's politics.
Looking at the election results going into the past back to the 1997 election inclusively, no winning MP (regardless of party) in my riding has managed to accumulate at least 50% of the riding's votes. To me that says that there's a disenfranchised majority of voters in this riding, and there has been for over 10 years. Maybe longer too, but I don't have the time to go digging for more results.
There are certainly better systems out there than what we're using. I know proportional systems get trotted around a lot, but the ones that have been presented in the past really do rely on people buying into political parties as a whole controlling things and dropping the more ostensibly local political angle. This also hurts your regional parties as has been mentioned.
Personally I like a lot of what I see in the Australian parliamentary system. They use a number of preferential voting systems which pass votes around depending on rankings rather than a first past the post system. I would love the opportunity to be able to have my vote counted based on my rankings rather than a straight up "You voted for the guy who got 9%. Best of luck next year." It would certainly go a long way in helping to relieve the repeated sensation that your vote doesn't count beyond the small boost in advertising funds it buys the party for the next election.
Bloc Québécois: 36%
Liberals: 30%
Conservatives: 16%
NDP: 16%
So, massive Conservative losses in Québec = Conservative setback in the Commons = No Conservative majority = Possibly a Liberal government.
Hell from what I read in the paper today there were some witness reports saying Sheppard grabbed onto the steering wheel of the car.
It's pretty convenient in these situations to assume the guy in the car is always in the wrong. I'm curious to see the outcome of the trial.
Not exactly ''massive''. At most, thats a loss of 3 seats. Most of their seats were won by very comfortable margins. You dont loose those kind of seats by loosing only 5 pts with the bloc being. at most, stable.
I think Beauport is the only seat they're certain of loosing. Cannon and Lebel might or might not hold on, depending how strong their personal popularity is.
Are Harper and his ilk actually trying to argue that the Charter of Rights should be superseded by government policy (aka Crown Prerogative)? That's fucking ridiculously stupid!
What the hell is their issue with not bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada?
Yeah, but it shows a trend of weakening support for the Conservatives. Quite simply, if they don't manage to convert their minority to a majority in the next election, Harper is done and the party will likely end up taking a bigger hit.
I don't think they have a chance of holding on though. The Liberals are still not in good shape, but there is a lot of ammunition to use against the Conservatives.
Harper plays to his base. His base would be perfectly A OK with us shitting on our child soldier treaty obligations and hanging Khadr on Parliament Hill for being an arab terrorist. So Harper will ignore the laws he swore to uphold and will continue to stall.
Also his government has a fucking horrible track record of helping our citizens out if they happen to have brown skin, which you may have noticed from the Kenya fiascoes.
There's a certain element in the Conservative party that probably would like nothing more than if there was no charter of rights.
Legislating from the bench! Activist judges! Parliament should legislate the rights of minorities! Judicial review is fascism! IGNORANT FEAR MONGERING!!!
I am quoting you for truth.
In my last provincial election I voted for STV and my riding's Green MLA. Later that evening I eagerly awaited the news on how STV did, switching from one news coverage to the next trying to find out. Finally, the results came up and not even what seemed like 2 seconds later after that devastating blow, I had to listen to some political commentary on how it was the fault of people like me who voted BC Green that the BC NDP didn't take more seats than the BC Liberals. I was the split vote. I was the wasted vote. And BC STV went from around 58% for last time to 39% for.
Voter turn out dropped from 58% to 50% as well to boot. I can't help but wonder if that 8% felt after the 2005 election like I did after the 2009 election. So, to add insult to injury, if only 50% showed up and of those 50% who showed up, lets guess at least a simple majority of that had a vote that counted, that means it took only somewhere between 26% - 50% of BC voters to end up with our current MLAs, meaning that there is another 50% - 74% of BC voters whose vote didn't count for anything - 50% of BC voters admittedly their own fault it didn't count but how many times do you suppose they had to put up with their vote not being counted? BC STV should have been implemented when it received 58%, the "needed" 60% was/is bullshit when it only takes 50.1% of the available voter turn out to get a MLA in a riding.
All too many people I talked to afterwards about it, I was surprised how many didn't even understand what BC STV was and when I explained it to them like it was setting priorities on your grocery list items or a top ten list of your favorite things, they went "Oh shit, I should've voted for it." Those who said it was too complicated, I just said sharing life with others peacefully is more complicated then a simple X beside a name, suddenly it was like the light when on for them too and I would hear another "Oh shit, I should have voted for it."
Azio, there is a lot of your posts I find myself agreeing with but unfortunately, suck it up and vote just doesn't seem to be working under the current system. Its not apathy I have right now, I am just at a loss as to what else I could do to peacefully change the system for the better so it can have more respect for the voter as a intelligent, even semi-educated, human being.
As far as federal politics go these days, I will never forgive the Harper / Cons for pro roguing in the manner in which they did, it runs contrary to everything a non-confidence vote and/or a coalition is supposed to be. Fuck, why didn't they just make a coalition themselves and form a majority with some other party people voted for. Grr... I hope Harper and Company's karma pays dearly for that bull shit. As much as I love her for eating that seal, my regard for Michelle is always going to be tainted by her having not given the coalition a chance and if it didn't work out then letting us the voters decide.
Harper should've never have asked to prorogue in the first place. He gave terrible advice, and no matter which way the GG eventually ruled, it would've damaged the Crown - which it did.
Party | Ntl | Ont. | Que. | M&S | Alta. | B.C. | Atlantic
Con | 37% | 40% | 20% | 58% | 55% | 38% | 25%
Libs | 34% | 40% | 38% | 20% | 28% | 33% | 39%
NDP | 16% | 16% | 10% | 16% | 13% | 23% | 33%
Grn | _3% | _3% | _5% | _5% | _2% | _5% | _3%
Bloc | _7% |
| 31% |
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/september/7/marzolini/&c=2
Really? I imagine that kind of thinking only holds for so long....
"Anyone but Harper" is a fairly appealing voting strategy for a lot of people. Strategic voting sucks, but sometimes its about getting the lesser evil.
It happened 4 times in canadian history, twice for both the Liberals and the PC.
In 1896, the Liberals got 41.4% and 117 seats while the Conservatives got 48.2% and 86 seats
In 1926, the Liberals got 42.9% and 110 seats while the Conservatives got 45.4% and 91 seats
In 1957, the PC got 38.8% and 111 seats while the Liberals got 40.8% and 104 seats
In 1979, the PC got 35.9% and 136 seats while the Liberals got 40.1% and 111 seats.
Just for Québec :
1886 : Liberals 39.6% 33 seats / Conservatives 46.2% 26 seats
1944 : Union Nationale 39% 48 seats / Liberals 39.4% 37 seats
1966 : Union Nationale 40.8% 56 seats / Liberals 47.3% 50 seats
1998 : PQ 42.9% 76 seats / Liberals 43.6% 48 seats
'94 is close to being a 5th case : the PQ won by a massive 30 seats plarality but got only 0.35% more than the Liberals in the popular vote.
The problem is how MPs are becoming increasingly restricted from fighting for the interests of their ridings, and how frequently the only regions that are represented well in national programs are those of the ruling party. Harper's tight-fisted rule over the government caused Flaherty, who was elected from a blue-collar manufacturing region of Ontario to say that Ontario is a dead end for manufacturing.
And Flaherty is most definitely going to be re-elected by the poor bastards that shlup up the good blue word.
Speaking as a member of Flaherty's riding, a lot of people wound up voting for him because he seemed to be the most coherent candidate at the town hall meetings.
If anybody had shown up and been able to present a strong argument about how they would represent the concerns of the durham region (which is fucking hurt thanks to the problems at the Oshawa GM plant) and combined it with how he basicly pissed all over the province his riding in I can all but guarantee that flaherty would be out on his ass.
The other end of it is that you can't turn on the radio without having to listen to conservative blitherings about how terrible the liberals are. They don't ever say what the Conservative party will do when elected of course; that would require them to have a visible plan for the future and campaign promises.
The liberals? I find that the party was in power wayyy to long and that bred apathy towards voters at the best or corruption at the worst. After Jean Cretien left the party infighting blew the party apart... Electing Mr grenn-shift Dion that could not clearly explain his plan exept that it targeted the west outright was not a good idea..
The Ndp? I like Jack Layton... What i don't like is the way they are married to the labor unions and southern Ontario... Again most of there policies are targeted to Ontario/Quebec
Greens? Any party that revolves around one single issue will not get my vote. I think the enviroment is important but not more so then foreign relations or inter province relations.
So who else to vote for?
Rhino.
If your local MLA was good enough to convince you to vote for a party that has held power for 38 straight years and shows many signs of corruption thanks to that constant run, why not get to know the local candidates and make a decision based on them, not on gross generalizations about the parties as a whole?
If you're focusing on the party, you might be in trouble finding one you like. You might want to look at the individual MPs for each of the parties, find out their stances on things and then decide whether you'd like them representing you (combined a bit with what party you'd be electing).
Edit: Beat'd so hard.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
See, that's what I've been saying. Join my party and run in your riding so you can vote for yourself. Or you can vote based on which party you want to get an extra $1.75, 'cause no matter who you vote for, your MP will be the Conservative candidate. Tory seats in Calgary are quite possibly the safest in the country. You could slap a blue shirt on a monkey and it would still take >50% of the vote... which is actually something I'd like to see them try.
Seriously: why the hell are you people so intractable in this regard?
MWO: Adamski
Your talking about the province that still holds a grudge against their provincial liberal party for what they apparently did like 40 years ago.