 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
I've quickly read over about four pages of comments and it seems to me there is a major flaw in Asher's arguement. He contends that a regionally based senate would have prevented the NEP from being passed. I doubt that.
The only province that screwed by the NEP was Alta. Meanwhile, it benefited most of the othe provinces. Maybe BC and Sask vote against it, but only three against seven. So odds are it passes.
I'd be in favour of a proportional parliament with no senate. Forming a government would require representation from likely all provinces.
Eliminating the Senate makes it more difficult for politicians to blame the another party for the country's problems. (That's what happens in the US where usually neither party controls the house, the senate and the president's office at the same time so they have an easy excuse for explaining why nothing gets done).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me.
No matter who we vote for, Alberta's vote is expendable. It won't make or break elections.
|
Until the rise of the BQ, people in Ontario said their vote didn't really matter because the election was decided in Quebec.
In the last couple of elections, Ontario has gone solidly Liberal and has ended up decided the election, but that is only because the right wing idiots can't get their act together and end up spliting the vote. If there was a single right wing party then neither Quebec nor Ontario would decide the election. Quebec would be split Liberal-BQ and Ontario would be split Lib- (right wing party)
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
So how does voting for liberals help us at all? They'll still get into power by an even more overwhelming majority, and they can still continue to ignore the province because they still don't need our votes to stay in power. Actually, they need to worry less about competition, since they have an even larger majority now.
|
If you elect a good MP, that MP would get a seat in Cabinet and would be able to argue that the Liberals need to throw some benefits to Alberta so that the party can develop a power base there.
As long as Alta votes conservative consistently then there is no political reason for the Liberals to pay attention to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I have huge problems following your logic on that.
You seem to be saying that by electing liberals to the federal government, they will meet our conservative needs better. Am I getting that right?
|
What's the difference between a Liberal and a PC? None from my perspective.
The fact is that Alberta will never be able to impose its extreme right wing beliefs on the rest of the country.
The Canadian system gives Alta the power to create a home for right-wingers. Now if you want to argue that Alta doesn't have enough power then that is completely seperate from the discussion about the composition of the Senate and Parliament.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
But that's not the point. SOMETIMES Alberta may get a real voice in government. Great. But why it it SOMETIMES?
|
You do have a voice in cabinet. He's called David Anderson. The problem is he is not a very good voice for Alberta. If you elect a better MP you'll get a better voice.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Aren't you all for equality?
|
Yup, one person, one vote.
There is no political system that will allow Alberta impose its views on the rest of Canada, when, as you say, Alberta, is so far to the right as a whole.
The majority of Canadians disagree with the Alta approach on health care, as far I know so a regionally based senate won't help you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David James
|
 |
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
I'm getting a little bit distressed at all this because I'm starting to see the old Central Canadian anti-Alberta bigotry rearing its ugly head again. You know that Alberta is probably one of Canada's most loyal provinces; Preston Manning could have campaigned on a slogan of "The West Wants Out" but he didn't. Instead he tried to funnel Albertans' frustrations to improving the country rather than destroying it. And some of you seem to think that Alberta is "right-wing" and therefore not good. Well compared with the rest of the English-speaking world Alberta is right in the middle. It's the rest of Canada that is to the left of the rest of the English speaking world.
As for Alberta and Bill 11 (and health care generally), well I've got news for you too; Bill 11 is a timid step in the direction of.... Sweden, that bastion of right wing yahoos. I have to admit that I find it a strange day when Alberta's healthcare policies are to the "left" of those in Sweden and the Netherlands, but there you go.
Anyway, back to the Senate debate. Personnally, in an ideal world, we'd simply break up the provinces of Ontario and Quebec into, say, 4 and 3 provinces (maybe with one of the new provinces possessing parts of both along the Ottawa River) each and a couple of territories in the north. Then do something with PEI and assign equal numbers of senators to each province. You won't have perfect inter-provincial population parity but it'll be a lot closer, which is what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind in designing the Senate. The other advantage of doing this (which increases the number of provinces by 5, or 50%) is that a greater number of provinces lessens the significance of any one province's actions. This is why the US state system works despite the potential for problems because the chance of all the small states going the same way on an issue to the detriment of the larger states isn't too likely. As for the argument that nothing gets done in the US, well, I regard that as an added bonus. The less government "works" the less it taxes and spends, so I would argue that it is indeed working quite well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
Could someone tell me why some people here think that it's so important that each province gets an equal say in the federal goverment? shouldn't it be each person? |
It's amazing how foreign this concept is to everyone in the east. 
Of course, every person should matter. The House, which has the power of the purse, is still much more powerful.
The idea of a balanced senate would be a measure to help protect against the abuse of 51% of the people into exploiting the 49% of the population who didn't have a majority.
Despite how the current system works, I don't think that the 51% of the people (conveniently located in two provinces which keep electing this federal government) should always have total and complete control over the 49% in the other side. They have rights too.
There needs to be some sort of system where you can still have majority rule by population with the House/electing the Prime Minister and that sort of thing, while having 1/3 of the divisions be done in a manner that allows for the minority provinces to simply stop from being trampled on.
Despite how you guys are constantly trying (so very hard, I might add) to twist it into this horrible attempt for Alberta to take over the world, it's simply a way for Alberta to try to protect itself against the abuses Ontario and Quebec historically have thrown our way.
If you see it as anything else, maybe you should stop watching the CBC.
quote:
Sure, each province has it's own specific needs - but isn't that what the provincial goverment is supposed to look after? |
Ideally, yes.
But incase you haven't noticed, Chretien has spent a lot of time and money lately meddling with Alberta's provincial politics.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd be fine with Chretien ignoring Alberta's voice as long as he stayed the hell out of our provincial politics as well. Right now he's ignoring what we say while at the same time heckling us about stuff like Bill 11 (which apparently Chretien still doesn't understand).
quote:
So you're basically asking that we change the system so that a minority of people get a different (better) treatment because they don't like the way things are done by the majority of people ?
Now where did i ever hear something like that ? |
I was waiting for a Frenchman to come and twist it all to hell.
I'm for having 1 of the 3 centers of power be done on a basis of equality per region.
Quebec, despite what they want to believe, is about the same politically as Ontario. At least, that's how they vote federally. Those two provinces are the ones that essentially control the federal government due to their huge populations.
Quebec's slightly different because it's always up in arms about how it's a different culture. I don't understand why having a different culture has to mean a different government, considering their political views are about the same, except for the BQ who want to seperate and throw even more money at Quebec.
Alberta is a different beast from Quebec. Politically, Alberta is radically different from the rest of Canada. Politically, Quebec is not that different from the rest of Canada. Politically, Quebec should not get "more" rights than the other provinces. Neither is Alberta.
In my system, Alberta would get the same number of votes as BC, who has the same number of votes as Ontario, who has the same number of votes as Quebec, who has the same number of votes as the Marintimes, etc. But only in one of the three divisions of power, and this is the one that can't draft any laws either.
Again, unlike Quebec, Alberta doesn't seek "better" treatment than the rest. Alberta is seeking "equal" treatment, something we haven't gotten in a while.
Let's overly simplify this and make an extreme example for the slow: Let's say we have Province A with 51 MPs, and Province B with 50 MPs. Province A always votes liberal, Province B always votes conservative, 100% of the time. In Canada's current system, Province A would always form a majority government, and could always pass bills at the expense of Province B. There is absolutely nothing to prevent that. Now, it's not that close yet, but it's getting there fast.
David James: Ah, so it's true. There are some rational people in Ontario.  
Tingkai: I don't know what you're trying to pull here. I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious when you suggest Alberta vote liberal in order to get our conservative voices heard and dealt with, or if you're making a joke. It seems like a joke to me, either way.
And if you need to vote always for majority government, why don't we just have a 1-party system of communism? 
Last edited by Asher on 10-04-2002 at 03:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's amazing how foreign this concept is to everyone in the east.
Of course, every person should matter. The House, which has the power of the purse, is still much more powerful.
The idea of a balanced senate would be a measure to help protect against the abuse of 51% of the people into exploiting the 49% of the population who didn't have a majority.
Despite how the current system works, I don't think that the 51% of the people (conveniently located in two provinces which keep electing this federal government) should always have total and complete control over the 49% in the other side. They have rights too.
There needs to be some sort of system where you can still have majority rule by population with the House/electing the Prime Minister and that sort of thing, while having 1/3 of the divisions be done in a manner that allows for the minority provinces to simply stop from being trampled on.
Despite how you guys are constantly trying (so very hard, I might add) to twist it into this horrible attempt for Alberta to take over the world, it's simply a way for Alberta to try to protect itself against the abuses Ontario and Quebec historically have thrown our way.
If you see it as anything else, maybe you should stop watching the CBC. |
 What?
I asked why you think that every citizen shouldn't get one vote.
I could care less about your adress, it doesn't matter where you live - everyone should have the same amount of power in chosing the federal goverment, and I want to know why you think that people living in ontario and quebec should have less then others.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
Much is being made of the concept of majority rules by some of the esteemed posters in this thread. Good. I agree, to a point. I also think there is room for checks against the tyranny of the majority. I feel that any body politic which is to prove enduring will have some checks on the mobs. I am not going to site historical examples of catastrophes derived from the actions of tyrannical majorities. I will if asked I suppose. What I do think would be more interesting for our debate is to examine the state of our House of Commons and see just how applicable the concept of 50% plus 1 is to Canadian democracy.
So it's off I went to here to see just how things shook down in the last general election in 2000.
-- Basic Information
Total Seats: 301
Majority: 151
No of Electors: 21,243,473
No of Ballots Cast: 12,997,185
% of Electoral Participation: 61.182
Looks good. While 61% is nothing to write home about, the US would die for it. 
-- Liberal Majority
Total Seats: 172
No of Votes: 5,252,031
% of seats won: 57.1429
% of Votes: 40.409
% of Electors: 24.723
What's this? The government of Canada is formed by the party with 40% of the vote representing only 25% of the adult citizens of the nation? I don't want to make too much about that 25% statistic. Those who did not vote should be flogged of course. I just thought it was an interesting number.
These are the guys who are in a position to run the country with out regard for the interests of all regions. 51%. Pfff. It doesn't exist in Canadian Parliamentary politics.  Just how far can we go down this road of the fallacy of majority rules?
-- Over the Top
Seats needed for a majority: 151
code:
Province NumVotes LiberalSeats
Nfld..... 103,103 5
PEI...... 35,021 4
NS....... 158,870 4
NB....... 159,803 6
Que...... 1,529,642 36
Ont...... 2,292,075 100
Total 4,278,514 155
% Ballots 32.9188
% Electors 20.1404
Thus we see that by the time the polls closed in Sandy Lake, Canada had a majority government for its House of Commons with just 33% of the ballots cast. So much for the 51% theory. It is a nice idea though. Just isn't applicable to Canada.
Senate reform? I'd say we need some kind of reform.
Refoooooooorm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David James
|
|
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
Now we're moving on to criticizing first-past-the-post. Just great. We're doing well here guys.
I certainly understand the concerns with it but I'm not entirely favourable to doing away with it just yet either. The reason? With first past the post, the electors are at least voting for someone, an individual. With PR, they're not; they're voting for a slate or a party list. Hell, you might as well just shut down the Commons and run Parliament in a small conference room somewhere where the party leaders come to the table with proxies representing their share of the vote and let them sort it out amongst themselves.
A good plan, in my view, is to incorporate some form of PR into reforming the Senate... the Senate is appointed anyway, so we might as well make the appointment process a little more democratic. The advantage of this plan is that by making the Senate the house of the parties and giving it some real power and legitimacy it might just encourage electors to vote more for the candidate than the party when electing MPs. In deference to the role of the Senate as a house to represent provincial interests the PR could be done by province rather than the country as a whole, though this would require something on the order of a minimum of 8 Senators per province to be effective and ensure that small parties could actually win something. We would, of course, vote for the Senate and the Commons seperately.
The point I've really been trying to make all along is that even small changes in the election and composition of the Senate could go a long way to cleaning up the mess that it is in and potentially having the effect of improving the Commons at the same time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
These election results are interesting, and a sure sign that the current First Past the Post system is pretty screwed up to begin with.
In Ontario in 2000:
1 051 209 people voted for the Canadian Alliance. 2 Canadian Alliance seats were obtained.
2 292 075 people voted for the Liberals. 100 Liberal seats were obtained.
How is that fair? |
It is a reflection of the first past the post system AND the incompetent right-wing politicians. The existence of the CA and PC parties split the right-wing vote.
In the 2000 election, in Ontario
642 438 voted PC.
If the right wing vote was combined for one party, the results would be different.
A random sampling of the Ontario votes shows a combined PC/CA vote defeats the Liberals in
Niagara Falls, Northumberland, Oakville, Oshawa, Ottawa West–Nepean, Oxford, Perth–Middlesex, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke
But not in
Nickel Belt, Nipissing, Oak Ridges, Ottawa-Centre, Ottawa–Orléans, Ottawa South, Ottawa–Vanier, Parkdale–High Park, Parry Sound–Muskoka, Peterborough, Pickering–Ajax–Uxbridge, Prince Edward–Hastings, Sarnia–Lambton, Sault Ste. Marie, Scarborough–Agincourt, Scarborough Centre, Scarborough East, Scarborough–Rouge River
So a combined vote adds 7 seats to the right-wing (one of the above was won by CA.
There is often a balancing out effect. In Quebec, the Liberals got 1 529 642 while the BQ got 1 377 727. The Liberals took 36 seats and the BQ took 38.
In Saskatchewan, the CA took 10 seats with about 200,000 votes while the NDP only got 2 seats with aobut 110,000 votes.
If you're arguing for proportional representation then, yes, I would agree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai: I don't know what you're trying to pull here. I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious when you suggest Alberta vote liberal in order to get our conservative voices heard and dealt with, or if you're making a joke. It seems like a joke to me, either way.
|
On many issues, there is not much difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
I think Alta would be better off trying to influence Liberal policies from within the party.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2002 12:43
|