Liberal or Conservative?

[ags281]

I've also heard that even if the Conservatives win, Paul martian can somehow remain the PM. Any truth to that?

That's the beauty of our current electoral system. The conservatives could gain the most votes, but the liberals could end up with the most seats, or vice versa. This is also how we end up with strong majority governments that only 30-40% of the population voted for. We really need to get a mixed proportional system going instead of this first past the post crap IMO.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister until he submits his resignation to the Governor-General.  If, for example, he has 20 fewer seats than the conservatives, and he forms a coalition with the NDP who have 21 seats, then he remains the Prime Minister.  Until it is proven that he cannot form government by means of a coalition, he is the boss, and his party remains in power.

This is fact, and it gives the GG very little choice in the matter. 

 

[Infanteer]

In fact, a Prime Minister may legally attempt to hold his position even if they are in a clear majority.  But the reality of the situation often prevents these situations from playing out; for example, Kim Campbell did not try to maintain a Progressive Conservative government with 2 seats in the House of Commons, she simply handed in her resignation the moment she seen her party was finished.  Legally though, I think the Conservatives could have held on as the ruling party until a non-confidence vote was put forward.

 

[AlphaCharlie]

If I were Mr. Harper, instead of telling the people where I, a politician, think the money should go, I would leave it up to the minister of national defence or someone who acctually knows what needs funding.

Also, when I hear "cut" I immidiatly think of healthcare and education. I'm sure there is a LOT of excess fat in the upper echelons of Ottawa, as someone else already said.

I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?

 

[Infanteer]

I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?

Then there would never be a winner.  I think Canada has only had one government form from a majority vote in the last 30 years; the others have all been formed from a plurality.

 

[AlphaCharlie]

I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?

Then there would never be a winner.   I think Canada has only had one government form from a majority vote in the last 30 years; the others have all been formed from a plurality.

Shouldn't the voting ballot look like this:

Liberal [_]
Conservative [_]
NDP [_]
Bloc [_]

You put an X on who you want to win. The group that gets the most votes (so if the if the Conservatives get 40%, Liberals get 30%, NDP get 20% and Bloc get 10%) then Conservatives win, Haper is PM and its a conservative government? That makes more sense.

 

[ags281]

Shouldn't the voting ballot look like this:

Liberal [_]
Conservative [_]
NDP [_]
Bloc [_]

You put an X on who you want to win. The group that gets the most votes (so if the if the Conservatives get 40%, Liberals get 30%, NDP get 20% and Bloc get 10%) then Conservatives win, Haper is PM and its a conservative government? That makes more sense.

That's what a proportional electoral system does.

With mixed proportional, you have one ballot that looks like that, and another that has names of your local candidates. A certain number of seats in the house would be seats for people who win the local riding MP vote, and remaining seats would be assigned so that the party with the most votes gets the most seats. There are a number of variations that could be done, such as X% of the party vote gets you X% of the total seats, or X% of the party vote gets you X% of the seats remaining after the local riding MP's are elected, or anything in between. Additionally, the number of seats assigned to riding MP's could be 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, etc.

Ever since I did a bunch of research on electoral reform for an essay back in first year university for a poli sci elective I've been a fan of a mixed proportional system for Canada. It fixes a number of problems with our current system, maintains the local MP idea, and allows for a government that may not have won any riding seats in an area (e.g. Quebec or the west) to have some seats in the house filled by MP's from those areas still with the seats assigned by the party vote.

Check out www.fairvotecanada.org if you've never heard of proportional or mixed-proportional electoral systems before. (www.fairvotecanada.org/fvc/AboutFairVoting for the quick overview descriptions)

 

[Infanteer]

The first problem in the electoral system we have to face is that the fact that government is decided by the party with the most seats, not the most votes.   This presents a clear problem to those parties that have their support base diffuse throughout Canada as opposed to regionally centered.   A prominant example would be be the 1997 election, where the Reform Party, concentrated in Western Canada, won 60 seats and the Progressive Conservative Party, with a broader Canadian appeal, only won 20.   Yet both parties had 19% of the popular vote

A simple diagram can explain how this works:

Say a party needs five votes to win a seat.   On election day, the voting in five ridings looks like this:
-----
                Riding 1      Riding 2       Riding 3      Riding 4     Riding 5

Party A         2                 2                 2                 2                2        

Party B         5                 5                 0                0                 0          
-----

Although both parties got 10 votes, Party B gets two seats while Party A gets squat.   This system is also the system that allows the Liberals to capture 60% of the seats in Parliament with only 40% of the popular vote; a majority of their votes were concentrated in Seat-heavy Ontario, where they swept the province.   As with the hypothetical Conservative victory you posted, a government is formed on the behest of 40% of the electorate; what do you say to the 60% who opposed that party at the polls?   A glaring flaw of first-past-the-post is that allows for plurality victories, rather than a more satisfying and representative majority vote.   (Mulroney was the only one to get one in the last three decades in 1984; Trudeau never had more than 45%).

The method of voting you allude to in your post with your hypothetical voting figures is what is known as proportional representation.   I have highlighted it in more detail on another thread here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17002.15

Even if proportional representation was introduced and a system of voting like you proposed, other problems would become apparent, mainly that you would leave your legislative body to a fate of constant minority governments, with their trademark log-jams, backroom wheeling, and unstableness; Israel's Knesset is a good example.   One of the greatest strengths of the Westphalian system is that a government, once elected with a majority in seats, can go about quite unhindered in its mandate.   That is not a problem in and of itself, it only becomes one when there is no sufficient checks or balances and a weak opposition to the governing party.   This has been the case in Canada for the last decade under Cretin.   No electoral system is perfect, but would would do well to stay away from the pitfalls of Layton's vaunted PR system.

 

[ags281]

Ok, so you've found one country where it doesn't work. In all fairness, the Italians have had serious issues with it too. However, this is still merely two countries out of the many that have moved in this direction. I'd say the small chance of ending up with a system that doesn't work well is better than living with a system that we know doesn't work well. Besides, if it goes very very wrong, then we can always go back.

Generally, WRT the problems, I have to agree with the arguments here (oddly enough, I argued the exact same point of view in my essay years back before even seeing this):

arguments against pr/mixed systems

edit: I am ending my participation in the electoral reform debate on this thread to keep it limited to the thread mentioned by Infanteer above

 

[AlphaCharlie]

Wow. Why does it have to be so complicated? Oh well. I still have a year to go before I must worry about it.

 

[Tebo]

Three points of note:

1.) A   mixed Proportional / Regional election system has my thumbs up:   Allows us to retain the required voice of under populated regions while alloting popular parties with non-regional power bases a shot at making a difference.   Coalition government operate effectively in many European countries; Canadian politicians might learn to cooperate if they had no choice.

2.) I am a huge fan of the Singapore model.   Universal sufferage at age 21 and voting is mandatory.   The 'joy' of being a lazy, complacent citizen can not match up to the threat of being charged.   100% voter turnout and we can see what the silent majority really thinks.   Is there any argument against this?

3.) Green Party of Canada - "Go Green".   Sounds like something an army type person could go for.   : )

 

[Pugnacious]

What is the political standings of the Green Party towards the Canadian Military?

Cheers!
P.

 

[Infanteer]

Tanks tear up the wetlands, airplanes pollute, and training soldiers spoil nature.   Oh yeah, our new submarines will be tasked to blow whalers out of the water....

On a serious note, I guarantee you it involves the word "peacekeeping"

 

[stukirkpatrick]

Speaking of party stances, the NDP's military plan is confounding.  Other than peacekeeping, they will "purchase safe search and rescue helicopters, and respect members of our armed forces with fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment."

Don't we already have the new SAR helicopters?  What we need are replacement shipborne helos, to replace the Sea King.  But that would be considered "offensive" equipment, which the NDP also promises to cancel, or not purchase.

I guess the Canadian Forces will be better able to serve the rights of Canadians, and innocents abroad without weapons.  ^-^

They also promote peacekeeping, but anyone who has read "Shake Hands with the Devil" knows just how capable unarmed observers and minimally armed UN troops are in a serious warzone. 

 

[Jascar]

What is the political standings of the Green Party towards the Canadian Military?

Military and security:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=17

Foreign policy:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=18

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Military and security:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=17

Foreign policy:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=18

My take on the Greens is that they are incredibly idealistic but most of their policies fail the "pragmatism test".

Examples:

1) Green Foreign Policy - will only deploy on UN-sanctioned missions.  

Problem:   The UN is not a legitimate body.

2) Missile Defence - will not allow space-based weaponss

Problem:   If North Korea launches a ballistic missile does it not pass through space in effect making it a space-based weapon?
In short, putting defensive weapons in space is a reasonable step to try to defend ourselves against would-be attackers
who do not share other's high moral standing.

3) Israel/Palestine:   Advocate for the creation of viable and secure states for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Problem:   This basically means bend the Israeli's over and force them to cede land regardless of the strategic or tactical
realities that they are neighbours with a group of people who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust.

4)   Insist that â Å“preventativeâ ? military actions will only increase the threat of terrorism.

Problem:   That is just a dumb statement.   Let's bury the PC issues here for a second and recognize that there are no pagan
terrorists, animalist terrorists and Jewish/Christian terrorists are few and far between.   This is a primarily an Islamic issue.  
If we had taken preventative action in Rwanda, would that have increased the likelihood of terrorism?   Sorry, but this is
the kind of nonsense that pisses me off....

I could go on, but if you want to see the problem, check the Arts section where they talk about increased funding, the
Childcare section in which they propose a mandatory 32-hour workweek, the Energy Section on how they would halt
all offshore drilling for petroleum reserves and phase out nukes (which is nuts if you've done any research on electricity
generation)....

There are so many, I'm out of energy.

Bottom Line:   These guys although well-intentioned need to be medicated.



Matthew.  

 

[Scratch_043]

The Green Party will:

Maintain a Rapid Response and Deployment Force capable of supporting humanitarian, environmental and peace-keeping missions.
Develop a merged National Reserve Force and Canadian Coast Guard to assume domestic responsibilities currently performed by the Department of National Defence.

...so, what they are saying is:
         We don't need a force for defence, we need an adult boyscout troop to help the people in need in other countries.
-what is the boyscout's motto?? 'do a good turn daily' something like that.

 

[Jascar]

While I'm not trying to defend the Green Party's platform, I would like to respond to your statements:

1) Green Foreign Policy - will only deploy on UN-sanctioned missions.  
Problem:   The UN is not a legitimate body.

I don't really understand what you mean by that. The UN definately is a recognized, legitimate body. Moving on, there are many nations that only deploy troops on UN-sanctioned missions. This wouldn't be much of a change for Canada since most missions we participate in are UN-backed.

2) Missile Defence - will not allow space-based weaponss
Problem:   If North Korea launches a ballistic missile does it not pass through space in effect making it a space-based weapon?
In short, putting defensive weapons in space is a reasonable step to try to defend ourselves against would-be attackers
who do not share other's high moral standing.

A missle passing through space is not space "based." Based means it starts in space, like the lasers for an an anti-missle shield would. The subject of Canada's participation in a missle-defence program with the US is controversial and requires far more coverage than I can give it here. It's not quite as simple as "North Korea has nukes, let's build a shield."

3) Israel/Palestine:   Advocate for the creation of viable and secure states for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Problem:   This basically means bend the Israeli's over and force them to cede land regardless of the strategic or tactical
realities that they are neighbours with a group of people who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust.

This statement reeks of ignorance of the situation. Israel itself is willing to cede land but the negotiations have been stalled/stopped/rejected several times. And creating a Palestinian state has little to do with those neighbors "who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust." Palestinian land is one issue, land that Israel's neighbors want back is a seperate issue.

4)   Insist that â Å“preventativeâ ? military actions will only increase the threat of terrorism.
Problem:   That is just a dumb statement.   Let's bury the PC issues here for a second and recognize that there are no pagan
terrorists, animalist terrorists and Jewish/Christian terrorists are few and far between.   This is a primarily an Islamic issue.  
If we had taken preventative action in Rwanda, would that have increased the likelihood of terrorism?   Sorry, but this is
the kind of nonsense that pisses me off....

The events in Rwanda were all-out war and genocide, not terrorism. The two can't really be compared. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who believe that the invasion of Iraq only made the problem of terrorism worse. They might point out the daily bombings in Iraq as evidence.

 

[Tebo]

So I did some poking around the Green camp and came across a few things:

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."   They also seem to talk pretty tough when it comes to deploying to UN sanctioned missions.   They want world justice it would seem.

Beyond the military perspective there are provisions for electoral reform, a senate referendum and an interesting ethics based corporate tax reform.   I am of mixed feelings about the Greens.   Surely there is idealism there, but with that comes a healthy amount of vision I find lacking in the alternatives.   They are not close to the hippie-only persona people seem so quick to allocate them.   But go read for yourself, it's somewhat endearing to see a party place food and nutrition as an actual platform component.   It might be worth the vote just to see the responses of Harper and Martin as they sit down in coalition against the Green majority.  

 

[ags281]

The Green Party will:

Maintain a Rapid Response and Deployment Force capable of supporting humanitarian, environmental and peace-keeping missions.
Develop a merged National Reserve Force and Canadian Coast Guard to assume domestic responsibilities currently performed by the Department of National Defence.

I'd rather see "a rapid response and deployment force capable of CARRYING OUT... missions." Politics is all about the words...  

As long as we're talking small parties here, I think the Canadian Action Party should replace the NDP. They're probably even farther out in left field, but at least they advocate a realistic military, so I might actually be able to listen to some of their ideas without that on my mind. If you're of the opinion that Hellyer messed up the forces though you'd have to resolve the fact that he's the party's founder :blotto: (I'm really going to have to read through his side of the story at some point)

I know for a fact that the conservative candidate is going to win in my riding by roughly 2:1 (again). This means that he doesn't need my vote, and a vote for anyone else is just as useless for determining who wins. The best way to make my vote count for anything is to try and give a little more legitimacy to the little guys.

Surely there is idealism there, but with that comes a healthy amount of vision I find lacking in the alternatives.

Definately. I'd like to vote green just to try and get them into the debate next election. People hearing more options can only be a good thing. Then again, I might vote CAP because I kind of feel sorry for them having so much idealism and vision - whether 20/20 or not - but zero chance of winning any seats (they better at least beat out the marxists...). Oh yeah, Freedom would be getting consideration, but they don't have a candidate here.