Coalition government

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

This is not America where winner takes all or people are voting for a party - people are supposed to be voting for an MP that best represents their community or riding in the house of commons.

I tried to point this out during the elections, but people still complained that they didn't support "X" prime minister...

[wishbone]

If this wasn't a power grab, they'd have made the coalition before the election. I'm sick to my stomach that an undemocratic coalition would govern this country.

Despite supporting the cons as the lesser of all evils in my mind (not looking for a bite on this), I'd be fine with a coalition of everyone else if they were fairly elected. They weren't.

Of course, this means another costly election....where sure, they may win. And waste $700M taxpayer money to do so (or whatever the cost is), followed by figuring out how to get along and run a country. Useless.

[miss.myra]

how is a coalition of people that 63% of the country voted for anyways undemocratic?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wishbone

If this wasn't a power grab, they'd have made the coalition before the election. I'm sick to my stomach that an undemocratic coalition would govern this country.

Um, do you understand what a coalition government is? It's two (or more) separate parties joining together to form a government. It is NOT an amalgamation of parties to form an uber-party (that's what Stockwell and the Reform party tried to do). If they wanted to form a coalition PRIOR to the election they would just amalgamate the parties.

Despite supporting the cons as the lesser of all evils in my mind (not looking for a bite on this), I'd be fine with a coalition of everyone else if they were fairly elected. They weren't.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, so I'll say it again:

VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES, NOT LEADERS
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DID DAVID EMERSON TEACH YOU PEOPLE NOTHING?!?!?!?!?

People really need to learn to pay attention to the name they're checking off when they vote and stop looking so goddamn much at the party beside their name.

[miss.myra]

lol reform party.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

how is a coalition of people that 63% of the country voted for anyways undemocratic?

Because it was formed post-election.

Form a coalition, and then vote. That's democratic. I'm not against a coalition, I'm against the circumvention of democracy that's going on here.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES, NOT LEADERS
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DID DAVID EMERSON TEACH YOU PEOPLE NOTHING?!?!?!?l?

I really wish there were more free votes so representatives could fairly represent those who voted for them.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Um, do you understand what a coalition government is? It's two (or more) separate parties joining together to form a government. It is NOT an amalgamation of parties to form an uber-party (that's what Stockwell and the Reform party tried to do). If they wanted to form a coalition PRIOR to the election they would just amalgamate the parties.

Make the coalition clear before the election so people would know what they can and can't get.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Because it was formed post-election.

Form a coalition, and then vote. That's democratic. I'm not against a coalition, I'm against the circumvention of democracy that's going on here.

Um, srsly, you have no clue how a coalition govt. works.

What you're talking about is, by definition, NOT a coalition

A coalition is formed post-election.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Um, srsly, you have no clue how a coalition govt. works.

What you're talking about is, by definition, NOT a coalition

if you would prefer, then, I don't agree with the use of a coalition government then in any setting?

[ebbomega]

Would you rather we have a system like the states?

Coalitions are a facet of all parliamentary governments. Germany and Sweden very often have coalition governments, and also happen to be considered amongst the most democratic countries out there.

[ebbomega]

Your problem is you're thinking like an American voter. You seem to think that your vote goes towards the PM. WHICH IT DOES NOT. What you vote for is a representative who then, in turn, tries to pick your PM.

If you didn't know what you were voting for, then you should pay better attention to how our system works.

[Bevvy Swift]

Originally Posted by Some dude

No election. The Liberals and NDP will merge (temporarily, one would assume) and form the new government of Canada, even though they hold fewer seats than the conservatives. I don't quite understand how that works, tbh.

basically, what makes the government isnt an election. it is the queen (or in this case, the governor general), who needs to see that there is a leader in parliament who has the confidence of the house. if the NDP and liberals co-align, Harper does not have the confidence of the house, and Dion or Layton do.

theres a few other factors involved which im not exactly sure about, but we DO NOT need another election to have a new government.

[miss.myra]

the democratic system in canada right now is basically 'hey lets have an election whenever stephen harper wants one, regardless if the rest of canada wants to!' (well, for the last two federal elections)

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Your problem is you're thinking like an American voter. You seem to think that your vote goes towards the PM. WHICH IT DOES NOT. What you vote for is a representative who then, in turn, tries to pick your PM.

If you didn't know what you were voting for, then you should pay better attention to how our system works.

I'm not going to sit here and say I know everything about our system, because I don't. I'll also not sit here and rant too long, because honestly? I didn't vote.

I'm well aware that people elect an MP who then votes for the PM. But party solidarity is much stronger in Canada than say, the US. I don't look at leaders, I look at party platforms. It's my understanding that on most votes, the party whip will ensure the party votes together, even if an MP's riding would disagree with the party's choice. I'm more than open to being proved wrong, as I know many of you understand the political workings of our system greater than I do.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES, NOT LEADERS
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DID DAVID EMERSON TEACH YOU PEOPLE NOTHING?!?!?!?!?

How is that a good example? People didn't really have a problem with Emerson until he pulled his flip flop and switched parties, so who's to say they weren't voting for the representative?

[ebbomega]

Party solidarity is part of the system. Except people keep erroneously referring to it as "solidarity", a better term is "confidence". Point is that the PM has to follow through on the things decided in caucus. And because they're the main voice of caucus, everybody seems to think that this means that the whole party has to toe the PM's line.

The point of our system is that if there's anything that the party will vote against, then they don't even bring it to the floor. There's a lot that happens behind closed doors.

The problem is that if you don't pay attention to how the political system works, it makes it look like the PM is pretty much the end-all-be-all of the party, when this is simply not so.

Also you have to take into account the possibility of floor-crossing and coalition governments - both which have been big issues in the last three governments we've had. Because of these it's ever so more important to pay attention to your local candidates and vote based on who will represent your voice best in parliament.

Coalition governments have always been possible in Canada's system, and honestly I think it's a shame that we don't see them more often. This is a byproduct of a multiparty system and IMO works wayyyyyy better than any 2-party system I've seen.

Out of curiosity, for all the people complaining about the cost of an election, does anybody happen to actually know how much it would cost to operate parliament for the period of time from when an election is called (ie parliament is dissolved) and when the election is completed? I'd really be interested in comparing those stats.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Grapes

How is that a good example? People didn't really have a problem with Emerson until he pulled his flip flop and switched parties, so who's to say they weren't voting for the representative?

Because the only people that complained were people that thought they were voting for a Liberal. Most of the people who I know that voted for Emerson based on his personal politics were actually pretty pleased he crossed the floor.

Shame that doesn't account for the vast majority of people who voted for him.

If you were happy with him personally (as opposed to which party he was affiliated with) why not be happy that he then got a cabinet position, despite the fact that his party didn't get elected?

[wishbone]

informative, level headed response. +karma. I like learning. Specifically any misconceptions I have, which I recognize most people in this country probably have.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by b0ld

If anything, it was harper (as a federalist) that tried to stir the pot when he was first elected by recognizing Quebec as a nation within a nation, but nobody gave a shit about it because nobody in quebec cared anymore.

lolwut? Harper called Quebec a nation to gain Bloc support.

From my understanding, Québécois vote either Bloc if they're separatist or liberal if they're federalist (a "anything but bloc" vote). And Bloc win big in quebec.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Remember, the Conservatives bonded with other political parties to vote non confidence and force canada into an election over something that in the big picture was much less of a big deal than what's happening in Canada today.

Even republicans and democrats are working together in the US to try to address these problems. Grow up, Harper.

The sponsorship scandal was bigger than the scandal itself, it represented the self-entitlement that had developed within the Liberal Government after forming the government of Canada for so long.

The conservative government has fundamentally different view on the economy from the other parties. I don't see how they could ever agree on the issue.

Can't deny that pulling that party funding stunt like they did was silly, at best.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Stuff about political system

I don't think people vote for the PM as much as they do for the party (of which the PM is the most visible figure). The party has an ideology, a platform, they vote together, they plan together and scheme together. The party is legion, the party is one.

Or some crap like that.

Basically, whatever party you vote for, you know the guy on the ballot more or less has the same views as portrayed by the party leader.

Too lazy to look it up but I thought countries with frequent coalitions had many more parties with elected representatives and a proportional representation system (e.g. Germany, Israel, Italy, etc.).

[dj_soo]

Originally Posted by Some dude

The conservative government has fundamentally different view on the economy from the other parties. I don't see how they could ever agree on the issue.

that's the problem with having a minority government tho - when you don't have the house votes to back your decisions, then you have no choice but to compromise with your opposition otherwise you can potentially lose the confidence of the house.

Harper and Flahrety decided to propose a budget without listening to the concerns of the opposition and then stupidly included a bill that would have crippled almost all parties but the conservatives. It was a move of sheer arrogance and now the conservatives (and the country) are in this mess.

[b0ld]

Originally Posted by Some dude

lolwut? Harper called Quebec a nation to gain Bloc support.

From my understanding, Québécois vote either Bloc if they're separatist or liberal if they're federalist (a "anything but bloc" vote). And Bloc win big in quebec.

If your statement is true.... How is it that on a provincial scale the separatists are not in power? And are not even close on being re-elected in the provincial election?. The Bloc candidates are more proactive in there community then any other candidate that I've seen across the country. And there social democratic views brings an open door that everyone is entitled to there opinion. There are alot of people who are non separatists that voted for the Bloc.

To understand what the Bloc is today opposed to what they were back then are two complete different era's. I suggest that you do some research about the sovereignist / separatist movement from when Rene Levesque created the Parti Quebecois to where the sovereignist / separtist movement is today. Alot has changed.

I don't know about you but my Canada includes every single province including Quebec.

[Some dude]

Originally Posted by b0ld

If your statement is true.... How is it that on a provincial scale the separatists are not in power?

My guess would be the ADQ. They aren't separatist, but they're closer to it than the Liberals, that's for sure. Who did they take most of their votes from in the last election?

My Canada includes Quebec, but not Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 'cause I'm tired of this crap.