Page 1 of 1

A new government in Canada. Although the Liberals are still in power for the 4th time, they have a minority government and will now be forced to form a government with one of the other existing parties, most likely the New Democrats....

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:28 am
by Julius Seeker
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>For those who do not quite understand the politics behind this: The Liberals hold 137 of 308 seats, which is the most of any of the parties by a good number. However, because they do not hold more than half the seats they will not be able to make any decisions without having to deal with the oposition parties. For example, they might make a deal with the New Democrats who hold 22 seats (which would give the Liberals 159, more than half of 308), but this will force them to adopt NDP policies in order to make that alliance between them; this happened before, and that is why we have our current Health Care system (of course now technology is vastly improved and more expensive); Paul Martin promised to greatly lower waiting time, the NDP will work with him and force him to do just that, or else likely Martin will be screwed on many of the policies he would wish to implement. The NDP is also much more a party for the people, so should the Liberals back down on any of their promises, then it will probably drive support away from them and into the NDP.

The Conservatives, they are essentially enemies of the Liberals, they hold 91 of the 308 seats and are second place. They were all set to win the election, the party was formed by the merger of two other parties, The Progressive Conservatives (a very left party) and the Reform party (a very right party). If they kept all their voters, they would have won, however, due to Stephen Harper's radical comments some of which include wanting to double the military budget, wanting to shrink down the government by cutting taxes and spending, and even remarks such as "We are heavily against child pornography and will toughen laws upon it" something that was completely unrelated and irrelivant to what Canadians care about, child pornography is not at all an issue in this country (as it might be in some places like Japan, Russia, South America, and Southern Asia), and Paul Martin just said "Every party here is against child pornography, do you really believe that anyone here would not be?"; essentially the comment made by Harper (Conservative candidate) was like "We're against murder", everyone is against murder; anyways, the media is saying that it was his child pornography statement that made Canadians feel that he was too radical and wasn't as in touch with Canadians as other parties. The other theory (by the Conservatives) is that the Conservative Party has been around since the merger in March, and that the Liberals took advantage of this by having an election at the end of June to sabatoge them; this theory is quite ridiculous for one reason, the Conservatives have lost support over the past month, they were ahead in the polls at a time, and if voters stuck to their and Progressive Conservative votes, the Conservatives would have won. The Conservatives can't win an election now.

The Conservatives are now seen as just the third version of the Alberta born party, first called "The Reform Party" then they changed their name to "The Canadian Alliance" by attracting a few people from other parties, and now they call themselves "The Conservatives" which they did by absorbing the Progressive Conservative Party. They're an old party, just with a new name. Many of the Progressive Conservative candidates left the party at the merger and became Liberal candidates; that was a fairly strong statement.

My opinion: The Liberal Party will be in power for a long time, but I believe that the NDP will only grow from heere, in 5 more years they might have as many as 50 seats, the popular vote showed that they had a fairly large support throughout the country.</div>

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:35 pm
by the Gray
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>As I've said, we're a one party country that sometimes let's the other guy play for a bit. No one wanted Harper to play though.</div>

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:55 pm
by Julius Seeker
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>At the moment we're a combined Liberal-NDP government. Which is fairly ideal I believe, Martin can't do anything without NDP support.</div>

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:46 pm
by the Gray
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I wish the NDP had a few more seats, but it's not a bad situation at all. I'm happy today.</div>

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:01 pm
by SineSwiper
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Again, I'm jealous of your political system. The aspects of a four/five party system is very interesting.</div>

If they base their next campaign around "A vote for NDP is a vote for an effective minority government" then they will do a lot better, maybe up to 40 seats. Speaking of which, I was on the CBC National today according to a bunch of people =)

PostPosted:Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:02 pm
by Julius Seeker
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>However they skewed what I said to make it sound like I supported the Liberals to keep the Conservatives out. I did vote for the NDP, I am a strong NDP supporter. Also this may not go well for me since one of the Conservative candidates in the province happens to be the same person who issued me scholarships and awards back in High School =P</div>

i dunno, i happen to think its a wonderful (and very unusual) for us to live in a 45/45/10 (repub/dem/independant) nation.  What are the chances of achieving such a balance!?

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:53 am
by Flip
<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>In most 2 party nations i would bet (i have no idea on this) that it is pretty lopsided, which leads to the formation of more parties. It seems to me that with more parties, the more collusion and sketchy politics is likely.</div>

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:45 am
by Kupek
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>We don't have a balance, we have a system that actively favors two parties. Think about the effect Perot and Nader had on the elections they were in.</div>

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:00 pm
by Julius Seeker
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>What's the electorial system in the US like? Is it by population or by proportional representation?</div>

Each state has a set number of electoral votes based on population, whoever wins the popular vote within the state gets all the states electoral votes

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:14 pm
by Flip
<div style='font: 12pt "Cooper Black"; text-align: left; '>So, theoretically you could have a tight race election where each state is only decided by 1%, but it looks like a landslide since the electoral votes would be XXX-0.

Or, as in the Bush/Gore election, you could have a guy win the overall popular vote (if you added up every vote from every state) but still lose the election based on the electoral state votes.

Lets say we have a 3 state country (large, medium and small) and these are their electoral votes:

Large: 15
Medium: 10
Small: 6

Here are the results of the election

Repub Demo
Large 16,000 14,000
Medium 7,000 6,000
Small 2,000 1,500

This would be an example of my first scenario, the republicans would win 31-0 even though it was a close race.

Here are another set of results of an election

Repub Demo
Large 1,000 29,000
Medium 7,000 6,000
Small 2,000 1,500

In this case, the republican wins 16-15 even though the total popular vote is in favor of the democrat 36,500-10,000



Its a gay system and noone likes it. Electoral votes screw it all up.</div>

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:27 pm
by Lox
<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yeah, I've always disliked it.</div>

The argument I've heard from a few people against it is that using only the popular vote would give high density areas too much influence.

PostPosted:Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:10 pm
by Kupek
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I don't buy that, since the large states already have more influence in the electoral college. From how I see it, using the popular vote would only make the concentration of influence more fine grain and independent of state boundaries.

However, using the popular vote still doesn't change that it would favor a two party system; we're still using a plurality(highest number of votes wins all). You would still have to choose only one candidate, which means a third candidate is likely a spoiler against one of the big two. Just about any other system of voting would be superior.

Even allowing people to vote for as many candidates as they wanted, but still using pluarlity, would be better. That way third party candidates couldn't siphon votes from the big two.</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:45 am
by SineSwiper
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>The reason why it's a two party system is because of our fucked up one-vote-only system. The third party doesn't have a chance to catch up with the rest because the other two have priority.</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:48 am
by SineSwiper
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Balance? And how would other countries two-party system be "lopsided"? That's just ignorant. It would be a democracy in name only, since the other side would never win.</div>

Yes.  The lopsidedness would lead to the smaller party getting the bigger one to split up and then collude with the new party to beat the original big party.

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:02 am
by Flip
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>A lopsided democracy leads to more parties which leads to sketchy politics (like i origiannly said). 2 parties that 'gang up' obviously have different ideals, which is why they are seperate parties to begin with, so how can they get along? They get along for votes only, which is a pretty bad reason.

We've never had a strong 3rd party form because we are in a political balance.</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:40 pm
by Derithian
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I wish the US had a representative government as well....</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:43 pm
by Derithian
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Yeah bud unlike the ego stoking son of a bitch fuck that is nader PErot actually was considered to have a ghost of a chance.....I mean hell he actually got votes. nader is just an ego stoking bitch....</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:59 pm
by Flip
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>Man, if Perot didnt drop out then re-enter he actually did have a chance. I remember him having tons of support until he dropped.</div>

PostPosted:Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:02 pm
by SineSwiper
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Yeah, that is until he picked his running mate. "ANESTHETIC! ANESTHETIC! ABORTION BAD! MY BRAIN HURTS!!!"</div>

PostPosted:Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:33 pm
by Gentz
<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Balance my ass. That split just a by-product of our utterly fucked-up binary voting system.</div>