[D'rek]

Abyss, on 29 March 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

I know this is an unpopular position with some, but i'll go there for the sake of discussion: how does voting Indy, Green or NDP make any sense?
It seems to moi that all it does is filter votes away from a party that actually has a chance at being in power. Indy's have no voice. The Greens are a joke especially since they absorbed the Marijuana Party, and the NDP are barely hanging in there.

On the national scale it doesn't make much sense, but someone might be more interested in the difference between their local MPPs than the national issues.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

cerveza_fiesta, on 29 March 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

It's funny. The CBC news is borderline satirizing the whole thing.

"and today, Stephen Harper was in burnaby, still telling everyone about the dreaded Liberal-led coalition, even though the liberals have said that they are not forming a coalition. Maybe tomorrow we'll have some actual platform issues to report on."

Which is good, because Harper's biggest lines so far have been complete baloney.

Let's not forget yesterday's income splitting for families--which wouldn't come around until until 2015 at the earliest, since it's going to be delayed until the deficit is repaid (ahaha ha. Remember, we're working with Flaherty's made-up figures). Note that unless the Tories win a majority, they may not be around to pass the legislation by 2015 anyway (in fact, it seems doubtful they can hang in another four years; two, maybe, but four, no). And it would still require at least one other party to sign on to the plan (and there can't be any prorogations either!). So basically, it's unlikely to ever materialize: it's a promise to do nothing.

Quote

• The Budget was fair and the Liberals refused to play ball - when the election has nothing to do with whether the budget was fair or not. They got voted down on non-confidence for contempt of parliament, originally for refusing to divulge cost figures for their fighter jet program if I'm not mistaken. The fighter jet program wasn't even in the budget, which means that they have no plans to ever tell anybody how much it's going to cost and they're going to be spending outside the budget on it.

Don't forget the figures for the cost of the expansion of the prison system (at a time when crime rates are massively down) to accomodate their made-up figures about "unreported crime". That's the other half of the information request that was denied and led to the contempt ruling.

Abyss, on 29 March 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

I know this is an unpopular position with some, but i'll go there for the sake of discussion: how does voting Indy, Green or NDP make any sense?
It seems to moi that all it does is filter votes away from a party that actually has a chance at being in power. Indy's have no voice. The Greens are a joke especially since they absorbed the Marijuana Party, and the NDP are barely hanging in there.

1.) Per-vote party subsidy.
2.) If nobody voted strategically and everyone picked the candidate they wanted in their riding instead, we would have a vastly different political landscape. The Greens would probably have a fair few seats, and the NDP would have a shot at forming a minority government.
3.) If nobody votes for the Greens, NDP, or the Bloc, then Parliament loses a great deal of its plurality of views on the social, economic, environmental, and political fronts.
4.) If nobody votes for the Greens, NDP, or the Bloc, then there's nobody else to keep the Tories and the Grits in check. I think at least part of the credit for the fact that our democracy is not quite as broken as the US's is that the existence of the other parties forces the Tories and Grits to make some sort of vague gesture towards the people who vote them in.
5.) If nobody votes for the Greens, NDP, or the Bloc, then they will never have a chance of forming government. If you think their current odds are low, just wait until you cut them out of the equation.
6.) The more seats the Greens, NDP, and Bloc get, the greater the chance that the governing party will cooperate with one or more of them in order to govern. Hell, we might even get a coalition government (in the indeterminate future), which would be pretty cool.

Of those, reason 6 is probably the best of them all. I don't know how well you remember the ten years of Chrétien's majority (or any majority governments before that), but they weren't all fun and games. The opposition has no real voice or power when there's a majority government, and the people in power are free to ride roughshod over anything they like. I prefer minorities--they're more democratic, and force a modicum of compromise and cooperation.

Abyss, on 29 March 2011 - 08:22 PM, said:

Sure, but if he wins, what use is he?

I think historically there have been all of one, perhaps two instances where Indies swung votes in a minority parliament situation. Otherwise, absent such a rare national level event, the riding in question has no voice of any influence.

Do you remember Paul Martin's few years at the helm of the country? Remember his minority government? Remember how Belinda Stronach turned the tide? Remember how the independents were courted? Remember how the Tories (under Harper) are alleged to have tried to bribe the dying MP (Chuck Cadman, Independent) to topple Martin?

Independents are useless during a majority government--but then, so is the official Opposition, and every other party. During a time of minority government, however, everyone suddenly matters a whole lot more.

[Abyss]

The broadcasters just told Green leader May to bugger off.
Here we go again...

[cerveza_fiesta]

Abyss, on 30 March 2011 - 05:39 AM, said:

The broadcasters just told Green leader May to bugger off.
Here we go again...

hahah...I heard about that on the news this morning. People are fully and completely pissed about it.

Really, I have no idea why they would be excluded. The fact that they don't have a sitting candidate seems a pretty weak premise for disallowing her participation. They run a candidate in dang near every riding in Canada now, they have significant voter and financial backing. TBH I'm not going to vote for them most likely, and they probably don't have much of a chance of getting more than a single seat, but disallowing a perfectly legitimate organized political party from a national leader debate is pretty dirty IMO. They have something like 7% of the overall vote. It's not going to win elections, but it's clear there is a portion of the population that cares what they have to say.

And they lock out May while allowing the Bloc into the debate, which is a selfish, separatist party with designs on helping Quebec and nothing else.

That's another debate though, any time I even think about the Bloc I get pissed. Their whole existence in federal politics was a massive, retarded mistake.

Here I said in the top 10 countries thread that we don't care too much about our politics. But I realize we get as fired up as anybody during elections. The vigor just seems to fade in the intervening years.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 30 March 2011 - 12:57 PM

[Goaswerfraiejen]

cerveza_fiesta, on 30 March 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

That's another debate though, any time I even think about the Bloc I get pissed. Their whole existence in federal politics was a massive, retarded mistake.

We have the right to elect whoever we want as MPs and send them to Ottawa. The Bloc has done right by us, and they're pretty much the only party in federal politics you can expect to accurately represent their voters, and to follow through on their promises.

IMO, the Tories are a vicious and vacuous mistake of a party hellbent on destroying the country, but I still think they're legitimate and have a right to participate in federal politics--as long as people keep voting for them. If you have a problem with the fact that a democracy won't always generate parties you agree with, then that's just tough potatoes.

[D'rek]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 30 March 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 30 March 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

That's another debate though, any time I even think about the Bloc I get pissed. Their whole existence in federal politics was a massive, retarded mistake.

We have the right to elect whoever we want as MPs and send them to Ottawa. The Bloc has done right by us, and they're pretty much the only party in federal politics you can expect to accurately represent their voters, and to follow through on their promises.

IMO, the Tories are a vicious and vacuous mistake of a party hellbent on destroying the country, but I still think they're legitimate and have a right to participate in federal politics--as long as people keep voting for them. If you have a problem with the fact that a democracy won't always generate parties you agree with, then that's just tough potatoes.

I agree, there's no reason a party has to field candidates in ridings they have no chance or desire to win. I think we should have more "special interest" parties like the Bloc and Green in the system and parliament (legitimate ones that is, with more than just a single issue like the old marijuana party).

[Abyss]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 30 March 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

...The Bloc has done right by us, and they're pretty much the only party in federal politics you can expect to accurately represent their voters, and to follow through on their promises.

Quote

IMO, the Tories are a vicious and vacuous mistake of a party hellbent on destroying the country,...

oh, the weighty irony in these statements.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@abyss

The irony was not lost on me.

The main difference between Bloc and the other parties as I see it are their priorities in parliament.

Other parties.

• Toe the party line (not ideally the best thing but realistically the #1 priority)
• Doing good for the folks I represent
• Doing good for the rest of the country

Bloc

• Toe the Party line
• Doing good for the folks I represent
• Doing good for Quebec

The bloc doesn't express an interest in the rest of Canada at all, so for anyone not from Quebec, it's hard to see what they contribute to federal politics. The rest of canada isn't even on their radar.

[Darkwatch]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 30 March 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

The Bloc has done right by us, and they're pretty much the only party in federal politics you can expect to accurately represent their voters, and to follow through on their promises.

Of course they can follow through on their promises. All their promises revolve around two things:
1. Be the monkey wrench in the federal system
2. Complain.

How can they fail, they never need to promise anything important like reforming the budget since they can't ever be in charge. All they've ever had to promise was to be a thorn in the back side of the parliamentary system (If the Senate was elected and functional then I'd say they belong there, but not in the House of Commons).
Even in a minority situation where it actually has some influence it's forced to downplay its main mission, Separatism, so that the other parties will get chummy with it. Without separatism the Bloc is very close to the NDP. Why not just vote for the NDP then?

This post has been edited by Darkwatch: 30 March 2011 - 03:37 PM

[cerveza_fiesta]

Just heard yesterday Stephen Colbert is covering the canadian election on the Colbert Report all week. His angle is to make it seem like a revolutionary regime change a la Egypt / Lybia. Pretty funny.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Abyss, on 30 March 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

oh, the weighty irony in these statements.

Perhaps you missed the point I was making. No matter whether an individual considers a given party to be a useless "mistake" (and I was upfront about my own biases), that party derives its right to a presence in Parliament from the people who vote for it, whom it claims to represent. To have a problem with that is to have serious issues with the concept of our democracy.

cerveza_fiesta, on 30 March 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

• Toe the Party line
• Doing good for the folks I represent
• Doing good for Quebec

The bloc doesn't express an interest in the rest of Canada at all, so for anyone not from Quebec, it's hard to see what they contribute to federal politics. The rest of canada isn't even on their radar.

I think that if you examine the record, you'll see that the Bloc places an enormous amount of emphasis on regional representation. If that's not the point of having an MP, then what is? Not everyone in a country is going to agree with everyone else, and it's perfectly fine for a party to reflect those disagreements. Hell, the Tories don't express any interest in non-Tory Canada (except to try to gain a handful of seats), so shouldn't it be hard to see what they contribute to federal politics? The Liberals don't have a single seat in Alberta--is it hard to see what they contribute to federal politics? What about the Greens, who have no seats any more? If you'd like an example, the Bloc was instrumental to keeping Canada out of Iraq, and to the signing of the Kyoto Protocol (not that it turned out to be worth much ).

Darkwatch, on 30 March 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

Of course they can follow through on their promises. All their promises revolve around two things:
1. Be the monkey wrench in the federal system
2. Complain.

How can they fail, they never need to promise anything important like reforming the budget since they can't ever be in charge. All they've ever had to promise was to be a thorn in the back side of the parliamentary system (If the Senate was elected and functional then I'd say they belong there, but not in the House of Commons).

1.) No party needs to promise anything at all, or follow through on them. The party that wins a majority can rule as it pleases, and every other party is just a waste of space. Hell, just have a look at the list of Tory campaign promises in 2006 (and 2008), and have a gander at how much they followed through on. Apparently, even minority governments aren't accountable for their words.

2.) Being in charge is not equivalent to getting things done. Bloc support is instrumental to the passage of any number of bills and pieces of legislation--both to sell it to the Québec population, but also to prop up minority governments. The Bloc consistently wrestles concessions that are good for the province, and often it wrestles concessions and promotes private members' bills that are (perhaps only incidentally, it's true) good for the country.

3.) Not wanting power leaves the Bloc in a position particularly immune to empty promises, powermongering, and corruption. They've been the most effective and consistent check against Tory ambition for the last five years, they were instrumental to the defeat of the Liberals over the sponsorship scandal, and they've also been one of (if not the most) accountable (financially, but also to voters) and transparent parties. If the other federal parties followed their example, we'd be in a better place.

Quote

Even in a minority situation where it actually has some influence it's forced to downplay its main mission, Separatism, so that the other parties will get chummy with it. Without separatism the Bloc is very close to the NDP. Why not just vote for the NDP then?

Without its emphasis on "conservative social values," Harper's Tories are very close to the Liberals. Why not just vote Liberal, then? In a minority situation, EVERY party has to downplay its more controversial elements so as to work in concert with one or more other parties--even the government (well, except that this one managed to bluff its way into not doing so too much). I fail to see why cooperation between the parties should be seen as problematic.

Incidentally, as I said in my first post on this thread, my Bloc membership has expired and I've signed on to the NDP instead.

cerveza_fiesta, on 31 March 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

Just heard yesterday Stephen Colbert is covering the canadian election on the Colbert Report all week. His angle is to make it seem like a revolutionary regime change a la Egypt / Lybia. Pretty funny.

I'd prefer serious Stewart-style satire. Colbert is fine, but I find it/him far less interesting, precisely because it's just another comedy show, rather than a serious check and balance to the rest of the mainstream media (which is what The Daily Show has become).

[RodeoRanch]

Every time I see Harper ranting about "coalitions" I yell at my TV.

Going to be a lot of yelling until May 2nd.

[Abyss]

Goaswerfraiejen, on 31 March 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Abyss, on 30 March 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

oh, the weighty irony in these statements.

Perhaps you missed the point I was making. ...

Nope. You were very clear.

[QuickTidal]

Darkwatch, on 27 March 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

Closest to Liberal as well, and I am. I just want to see the party cleaned up more from all the chaff.

Me too. I used to always vote liberal but there has been so many asshats in the party recently (including their leaders....Ignatief is a tool) which is why I voted green in the last two elections.

Sigh.

I'm sick of elections coming up so often.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 01 April 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

I'm sick of elections coming up so often.

Amen.


- Abyss, so undecided ...

[QuickTidal]

I think if the Green party could find a charismatic leader who people want to listen to..and they adopted a few of the things on the Liberal platform for themselves they might gain in popularity...because with the Liberal party not being well represented because of the idiots who are currently in it...people might be swayed. Sadly, Elizabeth May doesn't have the charisma required to make the jump.

Beyond all this, before the last election both my girlfriend and her sister told me they ALWAYS had voted Tory....but when I asked why they couldn't tell me and I soon discovered that (like happens A LOT in Canada to more politically uninformed people) they voted like their parents...and that's it (my parents both always vote Tory too, but I never have thankfully). Now, blessedly I was able to convince my girlfriend (her sister was a much harder sell cause she is stubborn and doesn't like being told she's wrong in any way) to at least LOOK at the various platforms and make an informed decision and if she still wanted to vote Conservative then I was willing to accept that....

...they are both in the health care industry...

...they realized what the Tories were doing and talking about in their platform...and were kind of astonished they'd been voting for conservatives...

...they both voted Green in the last election.

So at least I was able to get them to take a more informed and active role in their countries politics...which I think is a HUGE problem in this country...there are just SO many people who don't take that interest and aren't informed enough...and to be honest I think that is the govt. parties' fault. They make it all look so sordid and the casual voter has to go with one or two things they heard about platform-wise and not the whole deal.

What we need is for the Liberal party to be cleaned out...completely..and new fresh blood needs to populate it..younger people with better ideals...and who won't eff off with as much dirty money as they can get their hands on. I 'spose that's a pipe dream though.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 01 April 2011 - 02:05 PM

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 01 April 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

...What we need is for the Liberal party to be cleaned out...completely..and new fresh blood needs to populate it..younger people with better ideals...and who won't eff off with as much dirty money as they can get their hands on. I 'spose that's a pipe dream though.

...at least until Justin Trudeau is a bit older... [/irony] .

The painful reality is that the Tories won the last election because the Libs were internally divided and put Dion forward as the sacrifical lamb cadidate leader, causing just enough people who usually vote Liberal to swing Tory. Had it been Rae or Kennedy, we would have had at the minimum a Liberal minority for the last few years, more likely a majority, tho perhaps slim.

Bottom line, leadership matters.

At a guess, this election will be decided by whether Harper's leadership has put off enough canadians to vote Libreal against him, rather than for Iggy.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 01 April 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

At a guess, this election will be decided by whether Harper's leadership has put off enough canadians to vote Libreal against him, rather than for Iggy.

Yeah, but it's like voting for Sauron or Darth Vader. Both of them are tools...the only difference is one is in power and the other desires power.

[rhulad]

I keep trying to come up with something to say that will contribute to this discussion, but every time I start typing I just get pissed off at the entire scenario and lose focus. I'll try again later.

[Abyss]

Meanwhile, Sun media and others are railing against the CBC vote compass site (that many of us ref upthread) as being biased towards the Libs.

Best bit ran "if voters are wishy washy, the compass tells them they are liberal, because liberals are wishy washy!".