We vote by area. We vote for the people who are running in our areas. For example, in St. John's south/Mount Pearl, there are three people running, one from Liberals, one from the NDP, one from the Conservative. Every area in the country gets a vote in the parliament. It's a terrible system, because it could actually lead to a situation where a single party could get every single seat, while having a popular vote of only 34 percent. It's infinitely unlikely, but the fact that it could concievably happen is proof of the huge flaws in our electoral system.
Canadian Dictatorship?
- 主题发起人 Gculk
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Ah, first past the post. We have that ****e here too.
What's so damn complicated about proportional representation, really?
What's so damn complicated about proportional representation, really?
They would get majorities if they did their job as they were supposed to.
The theory is: A government makes promises that the majority of people want to see fulfilled, the government fulfills the promises, next time, they're re-elected and do the same job again.
Pity it doesn't work.
The theory is: A government makes promises that the majority of people want to see fulfilled, the government fulfills the promises, next time, they're re-elected and do the same job again.
Pity it doesn't work.
Cleaning Agent 说:
In order to have proportional representation it would mean that the minister elected to your constituency may not be able to represent you in parliament because his seat needs to go to another party. So you either have to remove the idea of voting for your local MP, or you have to separate between parliamentary seats for constituencies and seats for proportional voting, which would mean doubling the number of
Archonsod 说:
Or we could do away with all of them, in favour of me.
morgoth2005
Grandmaster Knight
That's your dodgy AMS system. The hybrid, and its quite ****ed up because you got good old MPs who represent their constituents and work hard and you got ****wit layabouts, elected by the Party not the people, with nothing to do but waste taxpayers money...Archonsod 说:
CA: The problem with PR is that it produces weak, coalition governments. Perhaps more democratic but rather less strong and stable.
Mage246
Cleaning Agent 说:They would get majorities if they did their job as they were supposed to.
The theory is: A government makes promises that the majority of people want to see fulfilled, the government fulfills the promises, next time, they're re-elected and do the same job again.
Pity it doesn't work.
Yeah that would never work. See, the electorate is too fickle to keep any one government in charge for too long. Often, people only realize that a particular President/Prime Minister was doing a very good job *after* they've replaced him/her with an incompetent successor. If one party was objectively better at governing than the others, then it wouldn't take long for it to become politically dominant. But, that's not really how it works, because no one can really agree on what makes for a good government. Most people would rather complain about something rather than find something to compliment.
You can't sit in parliament without representing a borough. The only party elected official is the Speaker of the House (and even then, it's decided by all parties). Usually the PM is chosen by their party, however technically it's up to the Queen to decide (and although the current monarch has been quite understanding in that regard her predecessors most certainly weren't, one even going so far as to select a Tory PM despite Labour having won a landslide election victory). The system actually works quite well, it's just changing it that would be a bit of a problem.Morgoth2005 说:
Ruthven 说:
That'll put everything in perspective for him:
Vilhjalmr 说:What's the problem with the handshake?
This is his daughter:
He just gave her a hand shake and went off, without saying anything when he drove her to school.
Mage246
Hmm, there is a distinct possibility of that girl being one of the Children of the Corn, in which case he was probably too terrified to hug her.
We HAVE had armed revolts in Canada before. Both English and French Canadian. While crushed they did lead to more responsible/self government for the Canadian colonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
Also I think our government sucks. Down with Harper! Up with... um, damn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
Also I think our government sucks. Down with Harper! Up with... um, damn.
Sir Prince 说:
Turn Canada into a British Protectorate and invite Arch over to rule it?
I like coalition governments. They tend to have to think about their actions better.
Elenmmare
Zilberfrid 说:
And they're completely moronic. What the hell? How can you call yourself a political party that sticks to its ideals if it forms a coalition with another? The NDP and Liberals have many clashing views but want to go into government together?
Gculk is exaggerating, as many of us Canadians do. Our historic strikes involve the flipping of one streetcar. Yah!
Anyway, you may not like it, but a good amount of West Coasters are pro-conservative. A democracy functions for the people. Harper may be right-wing, but at least he's not siding with separatists.
The separatist card is used a lot by the Conservatives. Regardless, its true; when you mention bankrupting political parties, can you blame him? Canadians are so damn left wing and politically correct that we appoint French Canadians at any turn, and finance separatist parties. We're paying for a party to gain popularity so that it can separate from Canada, but maintain its dollar, not pay off its debts, and essentially have its cake and eat it too.
The Conservatives may be "dictators" (still a left-wing party compared to the Republicans in the U.S) but at least they don't form a coalition made up of Break-away Quebeckans, Socialist workers, and generally balanced-but-led-by-complete-moron-Stephane-Dion-types.
Nash
Marquis
Here's something interesting: apparently the conservatives were looking to try that coalition stuff with the Bloc (ie "the separatists") in the past (IIRC, both in 2000 and 2004).
And no, the conservatives aren't much of a left wing party considering the PC's (Progressive Conservatives) merged with two (or was it one?) hard-right parties a while back.
And no, the conservatives aren't much of a left wing party considering the PC's (Progressive Conservatives) merged with two (or was it one?) hard-right parties a while back.
Elenmmare
They are compared to other countries. I know they're Canada's right-wing party. I'm from there.
That's an interesting point actually. I support Conservatives depending on the election and the candidate (Dion is a ****ing moron), but its safe to say that all parties are dirty bastards.
That's an interesting point actually. I support Conservatives depending on the election and the candidate (Dion is a ****ing moron), but its safe to say that all parties are dirty bastards.
