Federal Election Thread

[Cnussey]

That's because a lot of people think they are Conservative when they are not. Or they vote Conservative on moral issues alone...when, truth be told, most Canadian's are actually (gasp) Liberal.

 

If more people understood the economic policies, powers of the parties (Conservatives cannot reverse abortion laws people!), the democratic system, they would find themselves in completely different parties.

 

I used to be a strict-Conservative voter. Then I got into politics and my jaw dropped at the misguided education I, and most of Canada, has regarding our political system.

 

God I hope it's minority.

[apache]

to question this very assumption, don't we, inherently, have a coalition government at the moment...? it may not be official, but if everyone doesn't get their piece of the pie then we get an election... coalition government's are the norm in most countries, and for harper to claim we're getting in bed with separatists is non-sense, the bloc is more of a leftist quebec lobby group than a separatist group at this point.

 

I'm pretty disgusted by Stephen Harper's blatant lies with regards to a coalition government forming. Not only is it fear-mongering that is not based on any fact, but it's extremely hypocrtical because he himself tried to do the same thing to Paul Martin's minority government in 2004. This type of campaigning is pretty much what the Republicans do in the United States and pisses me off. Why doesn't he stick to arguing about the issues that actually matter to our country and stop with the bull****? Give me a break.

[mdDave]

says I'm closest to conservatives. Makes sense for me.

[thatonekid]

That's because a lot of people think they are Conservative when they are not. Or they vote Conservative on moral issues alone...when, truth be told, most Canadian's are actually (gasp) Liberal.

 

If more people understood the economic policies, powers of the parties (Conservatives cannot reverse abortion laws people!), the democratic system, they would find themselves in completely different parties.

I agree with this. I was talking to someone about the election and they said "I would have voted for Obama in the states, so I'm voting for the Conservatives in this election." I could get where they were comming from if they said "so I'm voting for the Liberals" but they seriously thought that the Democrats in the US was the same thing as the Conservatives in Canada. There's a lot of lack of understanding when it comes to politics/parties.

[seeking1]

This country was founded on a coalition government. Further, you are not voting for Stephen Harper, or Michael Ignatieff, or Jack Layton, or Elizabeth May, or Gilles Duceppe.

 

You are voting for a member of parliament. They pick the leader and form the government. Pick the best candidate in your area, that is all that matters.

[medisforme]

I agree with this. I was talking to someone about the election and they said "I would have voted for Obama in the states, so I'm voting for the Conservatives in this election." I could get where they were comming from if they said "so I'm voting for the Liberals" but they seriously thought that the Democrats in the US was the same thing as the Conservatives in Canada. There's a lot of lack of understanding when it comes to politics/parties.

 

 

Actually, they are not as far off as you think. Political ideas/views are skewed so far to the right in the United States compared to Canada that you can't say democrat = liberal, republican = conservative. We have no party that is ideologically equivalent to the US republican party/tea party movement. There is a small wing of our conservative party that might think that way but it is no where near close to a majority. Don't forget our conservative party is a coalition of the former reform party and much more centrist PC party. Furthermore, the prevailing outlook/world view of Canadians tends to naturally be much more "liberal" than the US. There are in fact many US Democrats that would be right at home in our conservative party; senator Joe Lieberman (Mass) and senator Arlen Specter (Penn) come to mind. Furthermore, if a party similar to th NDP tried to get off the ground in the US, they wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever gaining any sort of popular support, there are just not enough people with left of centre viewpoints in the states to support that type of party. Their democratic party is made up of people from both the left, centre and right of the political spectrum.

My point is that you simply cannot compare politics/political parties between the US and Canada, our political and national cultures are too distinct.

[medisforme]

In the G8 countries, Canada's doing far better than any other country and has even surpassed the pre-recession mark. Gota give Harper credit for that. I'm voting conservatives.

 

I kinda agree with ssd regarding the other parties.

 

With all due respect, Harper deserves minimal credit for our present economy.

 

DISCLAIMER - I will not be voting liberal this election but....

 

We owe our thanks our current economic situation to Paul Martin who as finance minister in the Chretien government and later as Prime Minister resisted calls to integrate our Banks/bank policies with international insitutions (ie. US/European union). The fact that we have a very sovereign banking/financial system is the key reason why our economy did not crash so hard as other developed countries and why we have recovered quicker than most as well.

 

All I am saying is you need to give credit where it is due, and not slap Stephen Harper on the back for the state of our present economy (I am not a conversative hater either; I voted for them the last election).

[thatonekid]

Actually, they are not as far off as you think. Political ideas/views are skewed so far to the right in the United States compared to Canada that you can't say democrat = liberal, republican = conservative. We have no party that is ideologically equivalent to the US republican party/tea party movement. There is a small wing of our conservative party that might think that way but it is no where near close to a majority. Don't forget our conservative party is a coalition of the former reform party and much more centrist PC party. Furthermore, the prevailing outlook/world view of Canadians tends to naturally be much more "liberal" than the US. There are in fact many US Democrats that would be right at home in our conservative party; senator Joe Lieberman (Mass) and senator Arlen Specter (Penn) come to mind. Furthermore, if a party similar to th NDP tried to get off the ground in the US, they wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever gaining any sort of popular support, there are just not enough people with left of centre viewpoints in the states to support that type of party. Their democratic party is made up of people from both the left, centre and right of the political spectrum.

My point is that you simply cannot compare politics/political parties between the US and Canada, our political and national cultures are too distinct.

Oh, I totally agree with you. I was just trying to make the point that there is a lack of understanding for a lot of people. I wasn't saying democrat=liberal. I was just saying that it would have made more sense if they had said that, but their logic was that democrat=conservative with identical ideals, which I think you would agree is incorrect. While there may be some similarities, they are not the same.

[cnb88]

This country was founded on a coalition government. Further, you are not voting for Stephen Harper, or Michael Ignatieff, or Jack Layton, or Elizabeth May, or Gilles Duceppe.

 

You are voting for a member of parliament. They pick the leader and form the government. Pick the best candidate in your area, that is all that matters.

 

While I agree with your statement in principle, in reality it doesn't work (the majority of the time).

 

I assume you mean pick the best candidate in your area because they will stand up for the area's ideals, and people (so if I'm wrong, I apologize).

 

It's true you need to pick a strong candidate, but you also need to look what party they belong to and their ideals/values/policies. The reason you need to look at that, is that no matter how "against" something the candidate (and their electorate) may be, in reality, they have to "toe the party line" when voting in the Commons.

 

For example, we have candidate Bob and candidate Joe. Bob belongs to a party that is right wing, and Joe belongs to a left wing party. Bob is a strong candidate and would be a great politician. Joe is a decent candidate, but wouldn't make waves in Parliament. Now, Bob and Joe are running in an area made up of primarily low-income people that rely on government aid/regualtion. Bob's party (because it's extreme right wing) wants to get rid of some social programs and take away minimum wage. Joe's party (extreme left wing) wants to keep these programs and increase scholarships and bursaries for these people so they can increase their education/knowledge in areas (whether it be at a technical institute, college or university). For this area, even though Bob is a stronger candidate, Bob would not be the candidate they should elect because when it comes time to vote on removing these social programs, he will have to vote in line with his party's platform. If he does not, he risks being ousted from the party and would essentially silence that region's voice in Ottawa (as an independent it's harder for your voice to be heard). Bob can voice his concerns, but when it comes down to it, he has very little wiggle room when voting on issues in Parliament. Joe, on the other hand, even though he would be a less strong candidate than Bob, would be a better fit for the region based solely on the policies and platform of the party he represents. (Note: this is just an example and has nothing to do with the current election, or any party's policies).

 

The reverse would be true for a CEO- he would want less regulation/government so that his buisiness would pay less tax and his profit margin would be greater. Thus, he would want Bob in as opposed to Joe (right wing is for more deregulation and lower tax).

 

 

Granted, there are exceptions to the "toe the party line" rule (which have resulted in some "crossing the floor"), but these are few and far between. While I agree with you that you aren't voting for a prime minister directly, BUT you are voting for the policies/platform of the party you want in because ultimately, the person you elected will have to vote on issues along those lines.

 

 

 

 

On a similar note, that's why I think we need to adopt an election system closer to Germany's. You vote for the candidate you want, AND you vote for the party separately (Yay for proportional representation!). I'd try and explain it here, but wikipedia does a great job:

 

Germany elects on federal level a legislature. The parliament has one chamber - the Bundestag; the Bundesrat, or Federal Council, represents the regions and is not considered a chamber as its members are not elected. The Federal Diet (Bundestag) nominally has 598 members, elected for a four year term, 299 members elected in single-seat constituencies according to first-past-the-post, while a further 299 members are allocated from statewide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution in the legislature, conducted according to a system of proportional representation called the Mixed member proportional representation system. Voters vote once for a constituency representative, and a second time for a party, and the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes. In the parliament elected in 2009 there are 24 overhang seats, giving a total of 622. This is caused by larger parties winning additional single-member districts above the totals determined by their proportional party vote.

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Germany#Election_system)

[medisforme]

On a similar note, that's why I think we need to adopt an election system closer to Germany's. You vote for the candidate you want, AND you vote for the party separately (Yay for proportional representation!). I'd try and explain it here, but wikipedia does a great job:

 

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Germany#Election_system)

 

Most Canadians may not want that however. There are just as many problems with proportional representation as there are for the first past the post system that we have. Out here in BC, we have rejected proportional representation as a system of voting for our provincial politicians for two straight elections.

[cnb88]

Most Canadians may not want that however. There are just as many problems with proportional representation as there are for the first past the post system that we have. Out here in BC, we have rejected proportional representation as a system of voting for our provincial politicians for two straight elections.

 

I agree that both have their problems, but I like that it's a combination of both. So the 299 seats they have for their "first past the post" would be like our current system (with our 304 or whatever it is now) MPs. Then, the other 299 are made up of the "popular vote". So if party X has 10% of the vote across the country they would have 30 seats (as there are 24 extra "floater seats" for instances like this). Party Y has 50% of the vote across the country- they'd get 150 seats, etc. I realize this isn't perfect either, but it would be more representative of the vote (for example, the Green Party would actually have a few seats since they represent 5% of the voters instead of none) than what we have now.

 

For example, you look at the Alberta legislature- the Progressive Conservatives have 87% of the seats (72 of 83 seats) but they only have 53% of the popular vote. The Liberals ("official opposition" (if you can call it that:rolleyes:)) have 9 seats but have 26% of the popular vote. If our system were more like Germany's there would be 105 seats for the PCs and 30 for the Liberals and another 30 for the other parties in Alberta. So instead of the government running wild with their agendas, having little debate on bills/laws in the legislature, you'd have to have a little more discussion- 105 PC seats with 61 "other" seats. Definitely more balanced (and reflective of the electorate) than the stand-alone first past the post we have now with 72 PC seats vs 11 "other".

[apache]

or the fact that the green party doesnt have even single seat, yet have 5 percent of the popular vote! that's not tremendous percentage but it certainly merits some representation.

 

alberta is a cluster****, as bill maher would say: "he's a man of the people? what the **** is this man of the people bull****? have you seen the morons walking around these days, seriously?"

 

those are the people running alberta's government, the only difference is in other provinces there's like 20 percent of them, in alberta it's like 90.

 

I agree that both have their problems, but I like that it's a combination of both. So the 299 seats they have for their "first past the post" would be like our current system (with our 304 or whatever it is now) MPs. Then, the other 299 are made up of the "popular vote". So if party X has 10% of the vote across the country they would have 30 seats (as there are 24 extra "floater seats" for instances like this). Party Y has 50% of the vote across the country- they'd get 150 seats, etc. I realize this isn't perfect either, but it would be more representative of the vote (for example, the Green Party would actually have a few seats since they represent 5% of the voters instead of none) than what we have now.

 

For example, you look at the Alberta legislature- the Progressive Conservatives have 87% of the seats (72 of 83 seats) but they only have 53% of the popular vote. The Liberals ("official opposition" (if you can call it that:rolleyes:)) have 9 seats but have 26% of the popular vote. If our system were more like Germany's there would be 105 seats for the PCs and 30 for the Liberals and another 30 for the other parties in Alberta. So instead of the government running wild with their agendas, having little debate on bills/laws in the legislature, you'd have to have a little more discussion- 105 PC seats with 61 "other" seats. Definitely more balanced (and reflective of the electorate) than the stand-alone first past the post we have now with 72 PC seats vs 11 "other".

[larva]

With all due respect, Harper deserves minimal credit for our present economy.

 

DISCLAIMER - I will not be voting liberal this election but....

 

We owe our thanks our current economic situation to Paul Martin who as finance minister in the Chretien government and later as Prime Minister resisted calls to integrate our Banks/bank policies with international insitutions (ie. US/European union). The fact that we have a very sovereign banking/financial system is the key reason why our economy did not crash so hard as other developed countries and why we have recovered quicker than most as well.

 

All I am saying is you need to give credit where it is due, and not slap Stephen Harper on the back for the state of our present economy (I am not a conversative hater either; I voted for them the last election).

 

I completely agree! It infuriates me that Stephen Harper gets credit for the way our economy weathered the recession, when he himself was AGAINST the strict bank regulations that eventually saved us. Our banks were chomping at the bit to join the party that the Americans were having, but thankfully Martin/Chretien refused to give in.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I am a conservative hater through and through, and this article does a good job of explaining why:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248

 

There aren't any great politicians out there right now, but I'm so sick of being lied to, bullied, and having my intelligence insulted by Stephen Harper.

[seeking1]

I assume you mean pick the best candidate in your area because they will stand up for the area's ideals, and people (so if I'm wrong, I apologize).

 

It's true you need to pick a strong candidate, but you also need to look what party they belong to and their ideals/values/policies. The reason you need to look at that, is that no matter how "against" something the candidate (and their electorate) may be, in reality, they have to "toe the party line" when voting in the Commons.

 

If by "ideals" you mean laws, policies and money, then yes, I agree with you. The prime functions of MPs are as federal legislators, however, so in terms of getting better services for your area, you get little from MPs. Unless you're like the guy in my area, whos been working so long municipally that his municipal connections will affect his federal leanings.

 

It is not a requirement that you vote with the party, but I get where you are coming from. I agree, we need proportional representation, it would help deal with this problem.

[Cnussey]

Party voting, strategic voting, not voting....love democracy (I actually do).

[seeking1]

Also, I can't get over the number of votes in this thread for the Conservatives.

 

You understand that they have little interest in funding health care properly, right? And last I checked, this is a pre-med forum.

 

If I've come to understand it correctly, the Cons haven't done any planning for the $30 billion transfer payment they have to make to all the provinces' health care systems. According to the Canada Health Act, that plan has a deadline in 2014, and if its not met, well...enjoy weakened health care, I suppose.

 

Article on what I'm talking about.

[51stCenturyFox]

Voting for Conservatives, hoping they get a majority - so to minimize shenanigans in future years. Back in the day ... PM Chretien was elected with 3 majority governments.

[Cnussey]

Voting for Conservatives, hoping they get a majority - so to minimize shenanigans in future years. Back in the day ... PM Chretien was elected with 3 majority governments.

 

Holy ****. Conservative majority is the worse government you could put in place. I think I would rather the ****ing green party...or stab pencils through my eyelids. Yikes. (Lol...no personal offense meant).

 

Bloc would be an awesome party...if they had interest in anything other than just QC.

[Wayward son]

Also, I can't get over the number of votes in this thread for the Conservatives.

 

You understand that they have little interest in funding health care properly, right? And last I checked, this is a pre-med forum.

 

Who cares about health care funding when you can save a whole cent off the GST??

[cnb88]

Holy ****. Conservative majority is the worse government you could put in place. I think I would rather the ****ing green party...or stab pencils through my eyelids. Yikes. (Lol...no personal offense meant).

 

Bloc would be an awesome party...if they had interest in anything other than just QC.

 

Haha! I agree! I was reading up (last election) and I was looking at their policies and stuff in the newspaper (they had an outline of what the 5 major parties platforms were) and aside from the separating from Canada thing, they actually have some pretty good ideas. If they ran out here, I'm sure they'd gain some more seats (ignoring the fact AB would vote for the Bloc just so they don't have to pay equalization payments to QC anymore ).

[seeking1]

Who cares about health care funding when you can save a whole cent off the GST??

 

LOL, preach brother!

 

Not that it matters. Even with the 2% off the GST, the Cons just added on a hidden built-in tax into products which meant you were paying the same anyways.

[51stCenturyFox]

Holy ****. Conservative majority is the worse government you could put in place. I think I would rather the ****ing green party...or stab pencils through my eyelids. Yikes. (Lol...no personal offense meant).

 

Bloc would be an awesome party...if they had interest in anything other than just QC.

 

If I could, I would banish the Bloc off Canadian land, preferably to Pluto. I'm violently Federalist and miss my home province tremendously after 4 years in Quebec.

 

I'm liberal (with a little "l"), but will vote either way depending on leadership, politics, wheel of fortune, the groundhog...

[Cnussey]

If I could, I would banish the Bloc off Canadian land, preferably to Pluto. I'm violently Federalist and miss my home province tremendously after 4 years in Quebec.

 

I'm liberal (with a little "l"), but will vote either way depending on leadership, politics, wheel of fortune, the groundhog...

 

Lol, funny. I still think you need to be confined to a little padded room until elections are over, though. Lol.

[MarathonRunner]

Also, I can't get over the number of votes in this thread for the Conservatives.

 

You understand that they have little interest in funding health care properly, right? And last I checked, this is a pre-med forum.

 

If I've come to understand it correctly, the Cons haven't done any planning for the $30 billion transfer payment they have to make to all the provinces' health care systems. According to the Canada Health Act, that plan has a deadline in 2014, and if its not met, well...enjoy weakened health care, I suppose.

 

Article on what I'm talking about.

 

Well, some of us also have other issues that are important to us. I'm ex-military, so I appreciate that the Canadian Forces now have modern equipment that works, and our men and women aren't being sent to a desert with frickin' green combats. Yes, the men and women of the CF were sent to Afghanistan with bloody green uniforms by the liberals, instead of the desert camo that they should have had, and that the conservatives made sure our men and women had.

 

I appreciate that if someone loses a limb, they aren't automatically discharged, like they were under the liberals, but instead, jobs are found for them that they can perform even if they are missing a limb.

 

Now I will admit that the treatment of vets still isnt great, but it wasn't great under the libs either.

[seeking1]

I made a mistake earlier: I thought it was just $30 billion, but rather its $30 billion/year for four years, so actually $120 billion.