Canada: Overthrowing the Conservative government

[Julius Seeker]

Is currently in progress by the NDP and Liberal parties, and it is possible the Bloc may play a role in this as well. Details here.

Currently the Liberals are selecting a new party leader, and that person could very possibly be the new Prime Minister.

There's one thing in particular that I would like to see happen here, proportional representation.

[SineSwiper]

How is this legal?

[Julius Seeker]

Edit: What Zeus said below.

[Zeus]

How is this legal?

Vote of no confidence in the current minority government. If all of the other parties get together (the others combined would have the majority of the votes) , they can vote in the parliment (sorta like the Congress but not really) that the seat holders (we call them Members of Parliment; MPs) who represent the people in their ridings that they have no confidence in the current leadership which will then lead to an election.

This actually happened a couple of years ago when the Liberals (Democrats) were in charge of a minorty government and it was led by the Conservatives (Republicans). The Conservatives came out of that with a minority for themselves. The election we had a month and a half ago was actually the incumbent Conservative minority government who initiated it because they thought the time was right for them to come out of another election with a majority. They didn't but they got a bigger minority. Up here, the incumbent party has up to 5 years to call another election, but it can happen any time.

Just some of the benefits/drawbacks of having more than 2 parties. The only thing I would change is the whole you can call an election whenever thing. I like the idea of a minority government but the last few years have shown us that the one of the two big parties who isn't in change only tries to overthrow the other (aside from the Liberals and Conservatives, we have the Bloc Quebecois, which is right-wing nuts for Frenchies and they get over half of Quebec so they have lots of seats; the NDP, which is basically like Nader's party but popular at about 15-20% of the popular vote on average; and the Green Party, which gets a decent amount of the popular vote - 5-10% - but thanks to our idiotic rules, don't have any representation in the parliment). If we have a 3 year min between elections, then they'll be forced to work together for at least some period of time. That's the best scenario IMO

[Julius Seeker]

If this is any help, here's a break down:

Party - Seats - Popular Vote
CON 143 - 37.63%
LIB 77 - 26.24%
BQ 49 - 9.97%
NDP 37 - 18.20%
IND 2 - 0.65%
GRN 0 - 6.80%
OTH 0 - 0.51%

[Zeus]

And what you see in Seek's stats is what I've been bitching about for well over a year: the Green Party has 6.8% of the popular vote yet has absolutely no representation in the parliament (yeah, that's how it's spelled:-). That means that in a country of 35 million where you have about a 50% voter turnout and about 60% of the population at voting age, you have about 720,000 people who bothered to go out and vote and have as much representation in their government as the 10.5 million of us who didn't vote. It's fucking sad over 3% of the population of a country who attempt to be a part of the political process get left with fucking nothing.

In Ontario, it was even worse. We had 59% voter turnout and 11% voted for Green in our provincial election so 6.5% of our population was FUBARed.

So if you're in BC or Ontario and you voted against Proportionate Representation, you're a part of this problem. Period. It's not opinion that these people are being left out of our political system when they do what they're supposed to and exercise their vote, it's fact. The only way we as the people have been able to help these people in the last century (at least in Ontario) was to throw them this (relatively bare) bone. And none of this "it didn't work" bullshit. It may have been a very, very small step forward (i actually think it was mostly broken, it was just better than what we have now) but it was at least moving forward. What you were voting for was telling the government "hey, we need change in our political system" not just for the specific issue on the referendum. And we said "no prob, guys, keep up the good work" while bending over and taking it up the ass from our politicians.

Those of us who voted for it have every reason to complain that the rest of our province-mates don't care about anyone else other than themselves. We'll never see another referendum like that again, not in my lifetime.

I know I've bitched a lot about this here, I'm venting.I promise, last time I bring this up. Just pisses me off to no end that people weren't up in arms over this, particularly those who voted for it. Even moreso in BC where over 50% voted for it and it still didn't go through (ridiculous requirment of 60%). They're at least better than Ontario where 2/3rds voted against it.

[Julius Seeker]

To translate those numbers, this is the percentage of the popular vote it took to get 1 seat per party:

Bloc - 0.2%
Conservatives - 0.26%
Independents - 0.325
Liberals - 0.34%
NDP - 0.49%
Green - 6.8% for nothing

Using the Bloc as a model the parties should have:

Conservatives - 188
Liberals - 131
NDP - 91
Bloc - 54
Green - 34

Change from actual numbers:

NDP + 54
Liberals +54
Conservatives + 45
Green + 34
Bloc + 0

New size as a percentage compared to old size:

Green Party - Infinite
NDP = 246%
Liberals = 170%
Conservatives = 131%
Bloc = 100%
_________________

[Julius Seeker]

Royalty getting involved. Michaelle Jean (Our head of state, the equivilent of a Monarch) may decide the fate of the Canadian government.

[Zeus]

Well, yeah. We can't have different people/parties working together to topple a common foe by forming a coalition in which each sacrifices their stance(s) to provide more points of view being incorporated in political decisions than just one party, can we? Of course we'd expect a media blitz from the minority government when the majority comes to an agreement to suit the majority. It's the only way to protect "democracy", to have one party be making the decisions for an entire nation, particularly when a vulernable minority government is in place.

In case you missed the tidal wave of sarcasm, consider this your slap in the face :-)

[Oracle]

I don't trust the Bloc, period.

I just get this bad feeling in my gut that while, yes, ousting the Conservatives is a good thing, those Bloc bastards will use this to fuck over the country somehow.

[Zeus]

I don't trust the Bloc, period.

I just get this bad feeling in my gut that while, yes, ousting the Conservatives is a good thing, those Bloc bastards will use this to fuck over the country somehow.

I was in Quebec in the summer. I seriously doubt that the Quebecors would accept anything that screws up Canada. I'm OK with them since they ain't the majority in the coalition

[kali o.]

I live here, and even I have no idea what the fuck these turds are doing...doesn't seem legal, logical or anything to me but apparently it is (with precidents set).

That said, fuck all these retards. You have US events spurring a global economic downturn...last thing Canada (and its economy) needs right now are these asshats in the government playing this drama out.

I'm baffled why the average canadian citizen, regardless of political affiliation, isn't pissed off at the whle lot of em.

[SineSwiper]

I understand their frustration, but to try this so early after an election is unreal. Sure, the situation has changed, but Conservatives prompted an early election for a reason (so they wouldn't lose their ass later on), and everybody knew what was on the forefront.

Start another election right now, and you could see a really really low turnout. People over here can't be motivated to go out and vote every six months, much less every month.

[Zeus]

People will always turn out if they care to vote. They have well enough the last couple of elections.

But I'm with Kali. I hate all politicians

[Julius Seeker]

I don't trust the Bloc, period.

I just get this bad feeling in my gut that while, yes, ousting the Conservatives is a good thing, those Bloc bastards will use this to fuck over the country somehow.

I am with Zeus on this one, the Bloc may be a Quebec interests party, but I don't think they are interested in screwing Canada. You can bet Harper is going to try and play the "they're separatists" card, even though the guy worked with them 4 years ago when overthrowing the Liberals.

I personally don't see how this could be anything but beneficial to incorporate Quebec more into our national affairs.

I would personally take anything over the Conservatives. Hopefully the other 2/3rds of voters who voted against them will too.

[bovine]

parliament is on hold. Michaelle Jean's decision isn't a very good precedent to set. Governments shouldn't be able to retreat when they see their end coming near. Although the governor general has never declined a PM's request to suspend parliament, such a request has never been made so close to a confidence vote where the government was expected to fall. I don't care what ideology you follow, that was a bad precedent to set for the future.

[SineSwiper]

The precedent is major, but so is the precedent that Parliament can vote on NC every few months. Does this mean that every time Parliament is unhappy with their PM (IE: isn't a member of their party), that they can just vote NC and retry until a PM of their party is elected? The concept seems unfair when it's abused in this context.

What if we could just have the Democrats vote NC to outst Bush, instead of waiting for an election? What if the Republicans could have outsted Clinton (besides using an impeachment trial) with a NC vote? Historically, we have had cases of different majorities between the executive branch and Congress plenty of times, and both sides have been forced to co-operate with each other, instead of trying to immediately throw out one side to match the other.

[bovine]

Prime minister is always the leader of the party that has the most seats, it's not based on an individual. Also votes of confidence are only put on certain legislation like the throne speech, the budget, and other highly important bills being passed through the house. A minority government is supposed to work with the rest of the parties, as that is the mandate given by the Canadian people. To not work with the other parties and rile them up like this shows that the current government is only out to serve their own best intentions and not of the Canadian people.

[Zeus]

This is just an example of us getting used to have more than 2 legit parties at one time. For a long time we were like the Americans, only able to handle 2 parties, the Liberals and the PCs (that's what the Conservatives were called back then; long story, don't ask). With the popularity of the Bloc in Quebec (since many of the hardline French pushed out the moderate ones or the non-French long ago) and the NDP (15-20% ain't nothing to cough at anymore) and even the Green party (who are ignored), the parties are now jostling for position. They used to doing what they want when they want when in power rather than having to compromise. Now they have no choice.

To me, this is a good thing. Not have one party be able to do what it wants and being forced to work with at least one other party is actually a step forward for democracy. But no one's used to this so we're just in the growing pains right now.

And the Conservatives' cry-baby tactics are all part of the growing pains. A spoiled kid will always try to throw a tantrum until they figure out it don't work and/or get punished. So it's up to us (the public) to tell these spoiled children they have to play nice or the controllers get taken away and no one gets to play. That's the idea behind the whole "you must wait at least 3 years before another election" idea I brought up before.

But that assumes that the parents are mature.......

[SineSwiper]

And the Conservatives' cry-baby tactics are all part of the growing pains. A spoiled kid will always try to throw a tantrum until they figure out it don't work and/or get punished. So it's up to us (the public) to tell these spoiled children they have to play nice or the controllers get taken away and no one gets to play. That's the idea behind the whole "you must wait at least 3 years before another election" idea I brought up before.

You're contradicting yourself here. Are you for the NC vote or not?

[Zeus]

And the Conservatives' cry-baby tactics are all part of the growing pains. A spoiled kid will always try to throw a tantrum until they figure out it don't work and/or get punished. So it's up to us (the public) to tell these spoiled children they have to play nice or the controllers get taken away and no one gets to play. That's the idea behind the whole "you must wait at least 3 years before another election" idea I brought up before.

You're contradicting yourself here. Are you for the NC vote or not?

I am? I don't see it.

I'm saying yes to the NC vote. It's an example of the evolution of democracy IMO. But the problem we're having right now (and have had for the last 3 administrations....which is what, about 5 years total for all of them?) is that the other parties who don't have a minority government simply do nothing but wait for the first opportunity to force a change in government (usually led by the main opposition). That is not a good way for our government to operate as it doesn't do anything for anyone. So if we force them to work together for x period before a new election can be called (by either the party in power or the no confidence vote in the House), then they'll be forced to figure things out to some degree.

I think that'll eventually - it'll take a while to change those dinosaurs - make minority governments work the way they're supposed to.

[kali o.]

I am? I don't see it.

I'm saying yes to the NC vote. It's an example of the evolution of democracy IMO. But the problem we're having right now (and have had for the last 3 administrations....which is what, about 5 years total for all of them?) is that the other parties who don't have a minority government simply do nothing but wait for the first opportunity to force a change in government (usually led by the main opposition). That is not a good way for our government to operate as it doesn't do anything for anyone. So if we force them to work together for x period before a new election can be called (by either the party in power or the no confidence vote in the House), then they'll be forced to figure things out to some degree.

I think that'll eventually - it'll take a while to change those dinosaurs - make minority governments work the way they're supposed to.

Evolution my butt - the only thing it's spurring is making our government into (more of) an ineffective clique. I'd elaborate, but I just woke up and have yet to drink my coffee...so I'll summarize by saying "You are f'n crazy".

[bovine]

is it time for zeus and I to talk about how much we want proportional representation yet?

[Zeus]

is it time for zeus and I to talk about how much we want proportional representation yet?

No, I can't. I promised no more on that regardless of how strong my beliefs were in it.

Kali - right now, I would agree, it's ineffective. But we as a country should stay the course and correct the process to force the children to play together. It will be better in the long run. What, you want to go back to a 2-party system like the one that fails so miserably in the US every 4 years?

Don't forget, I'm one who feels that parties should be illegalized and all dealings and agreements between politicians very, very closely monitored. That to me is truly the only way you can have the government be "for the people" again. You'd force each MP to ONLY focus on the needs of his/her riding and only vote that way. Their allegiances should only be to their constituents and no one else

[SineSwiper]

I am? I don't see it. I'm saying yes to the NC vote.

Well, this was your contradiction:

That's the idea behind the whole "you must wait at least 3 years before another election" idea I brought up before.

[SineSwiper]

Don't forget, I'm one who feels that parties should be illegalized and all dealings and agreements between politicians very, very closely monitored. That to me is truly the only way you can have the government be "for the people" again. You'd force each MP to ONLY focus on the needs of his/her riding and only vote that way. Their allegiances should only be to their constituents and no one else

Careful now. Your government and ours are representative democracies, not complete democracies. We sent representatives for a reason: to (or try to) elect somebody who isn't as brain dead as the populace as a whole. If members of Congress followed the public's opinion on everything, our country would be in bad shape. (Take the unpopular bailout, for example. It's needed. It has to be done, but the population doesn't like it.)

[Zeus]

I am? I don't see it. I'm saying yes to the NC vote.

Well, this was your contradiction:

That's the idea behind the whole "you must wait at least 3 years before another election" idea I brought up before.

Taken out of context I can see it now but it's not what I'm actually saying. What I was trying to say in all those posts above is this:

"Sure, the coalition thing should be allowed to go through and they should be allowed to use a coalition to bring a non-confidence vote against a minority government if they so wish. This is a great thing for democracy where you will have multiple points of view in "control" rather than just one as we have traditionally had and the US is stuck in. Essentially you have more of the population "properly" represented in governmental decision that you would with only one party with all the power.

However, we need to revamp the system to avoid this becoming an endless cycle where the opposing parties actually do nothing but try to topple each other as we have been seeing now. So one of the ways we can still allow this evolution of democracy but mitigate against it becoming an endless cycle of NC votes is to place a limit on how often it can happen. Right now, the only restriction is the PM must call an election anytime within 5 years. That's worked great in the past but now that as a country we've evolved to the point where we have 5 legit parties (I despise the Bloc too but they have the support and that's what democracy is). We need to revamp our system to account for that. My suggestion as a starting point is that we place a floor restriction to force the children to play nice for a certain length of time before they can use the coalition-leading-to-NC-vote thing. 3 years sounds like a good length as I seriously doubt people are just gonna stand by and let them do nothing for that long.

What we've seen up here is the political journalists and pundits basically wait for and expect another election the second a minority government takes power. That drives the public's perception and expectation and people essentially just wait for it. Take that expectation away and, for a short while at least, you have to have things move. To do that, you need at minimum 2 parties involved. That, to me, is an evolution of democracy"

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[Zeus]

Don't forget, I'm one who feels that parties should be illegalized and all dealings and agreements between politicians very, very closely monitored. That to me is truly the only way you can have the government be "for the people" again. You'd force each MP to ONLY focus on the needs of his/her riding and only vote that way. Their allegiances should only be to their constituents and no one else

Careful now. Your government and ours are representative democracies, not complete democracies. We sent representatives for a reason: to (or try to) elect somebody who isn't as brain dead as the populace as a whole. If members of Congress followed the public's opinion on everything, our country would be in bad shape. (Take the unpopular bailout, for example. It's needed. It has to be done, but the population doesn't like it.)

I agree. But when you introduce parties, you get a coalition of people who band together to form a solitary opinion and all vote together (well, mostly). When you have this happen, your MP isn't really going to vote what best for his/her riding but rather what's best for his/her party. We need to eliminate his/her focus on ANYTHING but their riding as, really, that's the only thing that matters. They represent the people in their riding not some fucking party line. Up here, we don't vote for a PM, we vote for the person representing our riding. Whatever party has the most riding nominates one of their MPs as the PM.

Personally, I could fucking care less what the morons in Toronto who voted for my party want. But the party as a whole has to cater to the majority of its OVERALL constituents so my guy is pressured/forced to vote on something that we here don't want him to 'cause those prissy fucks in Toronto want it. My guy should ONLY vote on what me and my riding-mates want/need, period. That's how he/she will truly represent me and my riding-mates who voted for them. Right now, that ain't happening since what you're really doing is voting for the party rather than the person. So we as a people actually have very little true representation unless we're completely along the party lines.

Incidentally, that's why I feel that so many people don't vote, particularly the younger ones. They don't feel a connection to these dinosaur parties that don't really represent them in any way. At the same time, that's I think why you saw so many people galvanized around Obama as so many felt that he DID represent them. Really, against any other candidate, I think McCain wins.

Getting rid of the parties doesn't absolve the MP from doing what's best for his/her constituent regardless of what their opinion might be. That burden is still on them. All it does is eliminate any other pressures/influences that takes his/her focus away from the people who voted for them

[Julius Seeker]

Oh, and by guaranteed surplus until 2013 by the Conservatives, they meant an annual deficit starting at 5 billion, and moving up to 5.5 billion in the next year; this is befoe any economic stimulation measures are even put in place. They either lied to us, or these so called economic geniuses are just plain incompetent. This is probably why they held the election when they did (even though Harper campaigned against calling elections at strategic times rather than waiting for scheduled times), to try and get a majority government before this got out.

All I can say is bon voyage Conservatives.

[Zeus]

You only have your fellow Canadians to blame for the support the Conservatives seem to have, one that looks like it may end up in a majority gov't should they call another election in January.