Why I vote Conservative/Liberal/NDP/Green/Bloc

[Trotz]

The NDP's style of cooperation is quite common in mixed-PR systems. I don't get where people get this absolutist impression of democracy where a party with 51% of the vote with 40% turn out; or in Canada, 35% of the vote with 60% turn out (5.2 million), should be able to dictate decrees to every else in the country.

Even makes our situation a lot worse when parties are "big tents", but only one faction within that party actually sets the agenda and the other factions within the party are unable to leave at a moment's notice.

Secession of a coalition partner is the biggest strength which minor parties have in mixed-PR systems.

 

[Ralph B]

Well folks it is a difficult position to say exactly which way one will decide to go this up-coming election! Let me state some of my observations, to make one ponder thier choices!

Liberal -

1. Has made some good policys over the years
2. Generally kept the debt in check
3. Tried to make some good decisions for the Canadian people- such as ivested in CN tower (helped create work made a symbol know thoughout the world, started Petro Canada to try to produce Canada's own feul from its own resources)
4. Now trying to smear opposition with what have they done for you while in last 5 years? (not trying to say what they will do for us, just say that other not working)
5. Spewing BS that there are only 2 real parties to choose from!!
6. Have been involved in scandles (the $300 mill Quebec spending thing and so on)

Conservitaves

1. Porouged paliment several times to avoid calm its faltering image.
2. Sold off Petro Canada (and looked at selling off CN tower interest)
3. Most times in government have had bad spending that has left us drowning in debt!
4. havce been part of scandles (Malroney, the afgan detanie issues and so on)
5. No introduction of a plan on what they will accomplish
6. Bashing the opponant Iggy schooled outside Canada and such !

NDP

1. Have played a good role, opposing bad legislation, doing as they say!
2. Tried to act on what they have been led to believe what people want
3. Listened to constituants did round of "Kitchen Table Talks" (not the ralleys where hear nothing and seek campain funds!)
4. try to make a small voice bostorous

Block Quebeqous

1. work well with other parties to support or defeat bills believe thier constituants wish.
2. wish to play fair politics.

Green Party

1. Have a good strong leader, That calls them as she sees them type of action.
2. Is formed on fundemental to take action to protect things to stop destroying earth!

Some couldn't say that much as have not entierly followed each partie issues only say what I see. Unfortunately much of that is filtered info that is allowed to be published. I will read and see some debates ect to make my desission however, so far the no platform opposition bashing has me verring far from cons and liberals.

IGGY to tell Canadians a vote for any other party than liberal or conservative, is a vote thrown away totally discusts me!! How is it block, ndp and independants hold seats??? There are other parties and canadians have a right to make thier own choice, it is such BS that has this country in such a state!! Maybe it is time for an underdog to move up to kick you where it counts!! Afraid you may get minority and if others have seats may just form coalition to oust you?? Seeing you don't have the cahoonas to deal with Harpie!

Lets see some real meat and potatoes of things that parties will do for Canadians!! Not this bashing ****!!

 

[wulfie68]

I made some observations off your post Ralph . I tried to be non-partisan with them but I know some do show my ideological leanings. I thought your statements revealed some mistakes that many Canadians make, especially in the way they look at the Liberal party: I'm not saying that you should vote or believe what I do, but some of the basis for what you were thinking seems flawed or misinformed. I look forward to election campaigns as a chance to see what parties want to actually accomplish, as most time in Parliament, the thrust of actions seems to get lost in the debates.



Regarding the Liberals:

1. Has made some good policys over the years
2. Generally kept the debt in check except they invented the debt and the PCs under Mulroney gave them the tools to let the economy out grow it. Add to that that controlling spending/eliminating the deficit was first argued under Joe Clark's brief tenure and later championed by the Reform Party until our free falling bond ratings forced the Liberals to acknowledge the problem
3. Tried to make some good decisions for the Canadian people- such as ivested in CN tower (helped create work made a symbol know thoughout the world, started Petro Canada to try to produce Canada's own feul from its own resources) PetroCanada and Air Canada are largely ideologic decisions: would you rather have a healthy private industry or a gov't controlled one? Trudeau created Petro Canada, and it did become sucessful but not greatly so when compared to other energy companies, while Air Canada has taken several bailouts to artificially stabilize itself and allow it to buy out it private competitors.
4. Now trying to smear opposition with what have they done for you while in last 5 years? (not trying to say what they will do for us, just say that other not working) Any party in opposition does this (and all do at election time)
5. Spewing BS that there are only 2 real parties to choose from!!
6. Have been involved in scandles (the $300 mill Quebec spending thing and so on)

Conservitaves

1. Porouged paliment several times to avoid calm its faltering image. Not something new to parliament, even in the last 10-15 years.
2. Sold off Petro Canada (and looked at selling off CN tower interest) this sell off originally was started by Chretien/Martin
3. Most times in government have had bad spending that has left us drowning in debt! Mulroney let the debt and deficit enlarge but brought forward the GST and free trade agreements to combat it
4. havce been part of scandles (Malroney, the afgan detanie issues and so on)
5. No introduction of a plan on what they will accomplish
6. Bashing the opponant Iggy schooled outside Canada and such ! Again this part of the crap all parties spew, just like the questioning Dion's dual/French citizenship and the NDP & Liberals going on about Harper's secret agenda.

NDP

1. Have played a good role, opposing bad legislation, doing as they say! Probably the most effective party in the last decade at pushing their agenda.
2. Tried to act on what they have been led to believe what people want This is largely regional. The NDP plays well to places with strong organized labour but lose ground in more independent areas.
3. Listened to constituants did round of "Kitchen Table Talks" (not the ralleys where hear nothing and seek campain funds!)
4. try to make a small voice bostorous

Block Quebeqous

1. work well with other parties to support or defeat bills believe thier constituants wish.
2. wish to play fair politics. except their version of fair means Quebec independence...

Green Party

1. Have a good strong leader, That calls them as she sees them type of action. The same could be said for the Conservatives...
2. Is formed on fundemental to take action to protect things to stop destroying earth!

 

[talloola]

The NDP's style of cooperation is quite common in mixed-PR systems. I don't get where people get this absolutist impression of democracy where a party with 51% of the vote with 40% turn out; or in Canada, 35% of the vote with 60% turn out (5.2 million), should be able to dictate decrees to every else in the country.

Even makes our situation a lot worse when parties are "big tents", but only one faction within that party actually sets the agenda and the other factions within the party are unable to leave at a moment's notice.

Secession of a coalition partner is the biggest strength which minor parties have in mixed-PR systems.

the low turnout is our fault, and I'm about to join the 'disinterested'. If we showed up at the polls
like we all should, there wouldn't be that 40% turn-out, and I do not believe that 'not voting' is making
any kind of statement. It is ignoring ones ability to make a difference.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have tended to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada because its policies have most reflected my political wishes. The Liberal Party, as Her Majesty's Government for Canada during the 38th Parliament (the Parliament during which I became truly politically aware), was--in my opinion--acting in the best interests of Canadians, and looking to support Canadians on issues that mattered to me (for example, the Liberals' relentless push for Bill C-38, now the Civil Marriage Act).

Having reviewed the Liberal Party of recent memory, I find that the economic and fiscal management practices of the Liberal Party reign far superior to those of the Conservative Party of Canada. Her Majesty's Government for Canada has consistently made budgetary decisions that seem, to me, to be focused on buying my vote instead of properly managing the country. I very much opposed, for example, the decreases to the Goods and Services Tax (and that can hardly be considered a biased stance, considering it was introduced to begin with by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada). Moreover, the social stances of the Conservative Party leave me with an uneasy feeling--the only thing that I would be more uncomfortable with than a Conservative minority, would be a Conservative majority.

As with the New Democratic Party of Canada, they have continued to leave me with the impression of having their hearts in the right place--when it comes to social issues--but having absolutely no grasp of the economic or budgetary considerations fo their proposals. While the charisma and energy of the New Democratic leader is undoubtable, I simply wouldn't trust the party with the management of the Treasury Board.

I wouldn't be opposed to the Conservative Party as much if it seemed that the Red Tories were in control of the party's direction; unfortunately, this is most absolutely not the case. It seems to be the harder right-wingers who command the ministerial benches, and it seems very clear that this isn't going to change any time soon; I can't help but think that the first ministry of a majority Conservative Government would be the clearest demonstration of social conservative values in a very, very long time.

 

[Ralph B]

made some observations off your post Ralph . I tried to be non-partisan with them but I know some do show my ideological leanings. I thought your statements revealed some mistakes that many Canadians make, especially in the way they look at the Liberal party: I'm not saying that you should vote or believe what I do, but some of the basis for what you were thinking seems flawed or misinformed. I look forward to election campaigns as a chance to see what parties want to actually accomplish, as most time in Parliament, the thrust of actions seems to get lost in the debates.



Regarding the Liberals:

1. Now trying to smear opposition with what have they done for you while in last 5 years? (not trying to say what they will do for us, just say that other not working) Any party in opposition does this (and all do at election time)_________________------Does this mean we have to accept it and allow this BS they are there to WORK for thier constituants Not spew BS that people either know or don't rightly care??

Conservitaves

1. Porouged paliment several times to avoid calm its faltering image. Not something new to parliament, even in the last 10-15 years.---------again it has been made clear that Harper is the only moron to porouge !! what you believe is suspend where all legislation put on hold NOT porouge where all legislation is wiped and must be re introduced, BIG waste of parlimentry time and taxpayors dollars!!
2. Bashing the opponant Iggy schooled outside Canada and such ! Again this part of the crap all parties spew, just like the questioning Dion's dual/French citizenship and the NDP & Liberals going on about Harper's secret agenda. ----------- AGAIN dissalow bashing say what your going to do and how you will do better than opposition, knock thier policys but go take a flying leap with the personal crap!! We all make mistakes from which we should learn not to be castrated for ! I rightly don't want to hear his person stuff unless it effects the way he/she can carry out the duties of the position.

Block Quebeqous

1. work well with other parties to support or defeat bills believe thier constituants wish.
2. wish to play fair politics. except their version of fair means Quebec independence... -------------------------Have not heard of that except from cons!! they are trying to work within parliment to pursue some of thier ideas. This is what they were voted in under to act on behalf of quebecers, they seem to work hard for it !

Green Party

1. Have a good strong leader, That calls them as she sees them type of action. The same could be said for the Conservatives...---------------------------------------------------------------That leader is not near same as Elisabeth sorry she carries party line on green issues Harpie just after kissing big corporate ass to land a nice position when he needs to leave.
2. Is formed on fundemental to take action to protect things to stop destroying earth!

To bash is a waste of taxpayors dollars and energys. It should be legislated that they can only attack policys not individuals!! I want to hear what a party will do not how bad the other guy is what is this pre-school yard bullying. It is degrading to see how the embarass Canada on the world stage with thier antics. ADS should contain policy not verbal assult!! Slander is illegal and what they spew should be as well!

 

[Ralph B]

Why do people defend non-political name calling??? S__t or get off the pot! tell people what your going to do and how you plan to make it work, none of this friggen he did this he did that but he didn't do ___________ WHA WHA WHA !!
Where is the real political reasons you want my vote???
Up yours with a 4 year term of can't be worse than what you've had! I may as well sit in an office for $150g's do it twice and get a big fat pension to walk away with Cool Vote for me I can call anyone a useless piece of trash tooo

Just because they have done it and gotten away with it don't mean we should just let it go!

 

[FiveParadox]

Alright, I'm going to attempt to respond to your post here, Ralph B--and I'm going to assume that your response are the red text that follow the rows of hyphens ("------"). Having said that, I'd like to introduce you to the "Quote" button--it makes conversations on here so much easier to follow.

Does this mean we have to accept it and allow this BS they are there to WORK for thier constituants Not spew BS that people either know or don't rightly care??

We should absolutely accept it.

The role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to hold Her Majesty's Government for Canada accountable for its conduct, its agenda and, in general, its performance. The Official Opposition acts as a constant "Government-in-waiting," ready to take over the reins at a moment's notice (this is why the Official Opposition keeps a critic for each minister--the "Shadow Cabinet"). One of the best ways for the Official Opposition to perform this function is to highlight what the Government has--and hasn't--done, and the same is true the other way around. The Government has a right (as much as I despise our present Government) to defend itself against such criticism with its own criticism of the Official Opposition. The elected House of Commons is necessarily partisan--we can't take the politics out of politics, but we can try to strike a more effective balance.

again it has been made clear that Harper is the only moron to porouge !! what you believe is suspend where all legislation put on hold NOT porouge where all legislation is wiped and must be re introduced, BIG waste of parlimentry time and taxpayors dollars!!

You're absolutely incorrect.

While The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister has indeed prorogued the legislature twice, this is meant to be a routine procedure. While I very much disagree with the prime minister's reasons for prorogation (and would argue, but on a separate line of conversation, that his actions on this issue may have damaged the concept of responsible government in our constitutional structure, in terms of the Government being responsible to the elected House), the fact of the matter is that prorogation is [normally] a routine procedure that happens up to four or five times--two of our Parliaments have even been prorogued six times.

In majority government situations, prorogations are normally performed about once every year--whenever the Government feels that it has accomplished the majority of its throne speech agenda. When Parliament then resumes, the Government can introduce a new throne speech, and set a new agenda and tone for the next session. The only Parliament to have gone unprorogued in recent memory is the 38th Parliament, during the premiership of The Right Honourable Paul Martin P.C., the 21[/size=1]st[/size] Prime Minister--and the only reason that he never prorogued the House is because his Government didn't survive long enough for it to be an issue.

I urge you to review our parliamentary history. We are currently on our 40th Parliament, and here's how many times each Parliament has been prorogued since Confederation:

1. 1st Parliament had 4 prorogations
2. 2nd Parliament had 1 prorogation
3. 3rd Parliament had 4 prorogations
4. 4th Parliament had 3 prorogations
5. 5th Parliament had 3 prorogations
6. 6th Parliament had 3 prorogations
7. 7th Parliament had 5 prorogations
8. 8th Parliament had 4 prorogations
9. 9th Parliament had 3 prorogations
10. 10th Parliament had 3 prorogations
11. 11th Parliament had 2 prorogations
12. 12th Parliament had 6 prorogations [Parliament was extended beyond 5 years due to war]
13. 13th Parliament had 3 prorogations
14. 14th Parliament had 3 prorogations
15. 15th Parliament was never prorouged
16. 16th Parliament had 3 prorogations
17. 17th Parliament had 5 prorogations
18. 18th Parliament had 5 prorogations
19. 19th Parliament had 5 prorogations
20. 20th Parliament had 4 prorogations
21. 21st Parliament had 6 prorogations
22. 22nd Parliament had 4 prorogations
23. 23rd Parliament was never prorogued
24. 24th Parliament had 4 prorogations
25. 25th Parliament was never prorogued
26. 26th Parliament had 2 prorogations
27. 27th Parliament had 1 prorogation
28. 28th Parliament had 3 prorogations
29. 29th Parliament had 1 prorogation
30. 30th Parliament had 3 prorogations
31. 31st Parliament was never prorogued
32. 32nd Parliament had 1 prorogation
33. 33rd Parliament had 1 prorogation
34. 34th Parliament had 2 prorogations
35. 35th Parliament had 1 prorogation
36. 36th Parliament had 1 prorogation
37. 37th Parliament had 2 prorogations
38. 38th Parliament was never prorogued
39. 39th Parliament had 1 prorogation
40. 40th Parliament [so far] has had 2 prorogations

I hope this demonstrates that prorogation is, contrary to your rabid insistence, routine.

 

[ansutherland]

With a new election on the horizon, I thought it would be interesting for any of us that wished to post articles on the policies, actions, people, or any other positive reason you vote for the people you do.....or would consider voting for any particular party.

Hopefully, sort of a anti-negative ad thread.......

I'll start....

I vote Conservative because of actions like this:

Iranium will be screened at Library and Archives Canada in February | Posted | National Post

I would not dream of voting for any of them. Milton Friedman said that the goal of a democracy should be to provide strong incentive for the wrong people to do the right things. Our system does not encourage this. First of all, proportional representation is necessary to encourage my vote. Second, accountability on the part of the politicians should be required such that there could be legal repercussions for wilfully lying. Third, stop letting everyone vote......I'm serious. Most people out there know so little about what is going on (and I know almost everyone thinks the same yet never considers themselves) that there is no possible way for them to make an informed decision at the polls. As an example, the next time you come across someone that is against the HST, ask them what exactly it is and why it is suppose to work according the economists? They will have no idea, yet they will vote against it because they lack the ability to think beyond stage one.

I will vote when:

1-We have proportional representation.
2-There is meaningful accountability for deliberate lying.
3-Most importantly, when we start taking the responsibility of voting more seriously by requiring that people show a more fundamental understanding of politics.

Simply put, I will likely never vote again.

 

[Machjo]

I would not dream of voting for any of them. Milton Friedman said that the goal of a democracy should be to provide strong incentive for the wrong people to do the right things. Our system does not encourage this. First of all, proportional representation is necessary to encourage my vote. Second, accountability on the part of the politicians should be required such that there could be legal repercussions for wilfully lying. Third, stop letting everyone vote......I'm serious. Most people out there know so little about what is going on (and I know almost everyone thinks the same yet never considers themselves) that there is no possible way for them to make an informed decision at the polls. As an example, the next time you come across someone that is against the HST, ask them what exactly it is and why it is suppose to work according the economists? They will have no idea, yet they will vote against it because they lack the ability to think beyond stage one.

I will vote when:

1-We have proportional representation.
2-There is meaningful accountability for deliberate lying.
3-Most importantly, when we start taking the responsibility of voting more seriously by requiring that people show a more fundamental understanding of politics.

Simply put, I will likely never vote again.

Then we're going to run into a few problems. You want to move towards proportional representation, whereas I want to move towards non-partisan plurality-at-large. So we're both equally dissatisfied with the current system, but see totally opposite diametrically opposed solutions. Clearly we both cancel each other out and so the current system continues.

 

[ansutherland]

Then we're going to run into a few problems. You want to move towards proportional representation, whereas I want to move towards non-partisan plurality-at-large. So we're both equally dissatisfied with the current system, but see totally opposite diametrically opposed solutions. Clearly we both cancel each other out and so the current system continues.

Then we revolt!!

 

[Machjo]

Then we revolt!!

Now this is the problem with fighting against something as opposed to for something. If we did revolt, we'd be allies against the current system. Once we'd succeed in tearing it down, how in the world would would we ever agree on its replacement? In the end, with us then bickering about whether we should give party absolute power in Parliament by moving towards proportional representation, or removing all power from parties and putting it in the hands of the people through their representatives in the House via plurality-at-large non-partisan democracy, those who support the current system, defeated but cognizant that we can't agree on its replacement, would sneak in and reintroduce the current system and then we'd be back at square one.

All that effort for nothing.

The only solution I could see would be if we cold find a system that could satisfy both sides. Otherwise we will continue to be stuck with this compromise system which satisfies neither side but those who benefit from it unfairly.

 

[ansutherland]

Now this is the problem with fighting against something as opposed to for something. If we did revolt, we'd be allies against the current system. Once we'd succeed in tearing it down, how in the world would would we ever agree on its replacement? In the end, with us then bickering about whether we should give party absolute power in Parliament by moving towards proportional representation, or removing all power from parties and putting it in the hands of the people through their representatives in the House via plurality-at-large non-partisan democracy, those who support the current system, defeated but cognizant that we can't agree on its replacement, would sneak in and reintroduce the current system and then we'd be back at square one.

All that effort for nothing.

The only solution I could see would be if we cold find a system that could satisfy both sides. Otherwise we will continue to be stuck with this compromise system which satisfies neither side but those who benefit from it unfairly.

There may be no need to compromise. As I see it, letting everyone have an intellectually unrestrained and wilfully ignorant say in what goes on is a destructive idea and I feel strong enough about that that I think with little effort one could find plenty of examples of it. What I believe is best is to test both systems as empirically as possible. The winner is implemented irrespective of what everyone wants. I know this sounds rather authoritarian and in the beginning it possibly would be, but it's all for the best. This does not mean that we would be under Marshal Law, rather the electoral system would be changed and no amount of bitching would reverse that decision.

I do agree though that party politics has many drawbacks and I am not a fan of it. The notion of someone having to vote in accordance with what the party wants does not make a ton of sense. Mind you, in the US, Congressman can vote however they wish and their politics is way worse than ours.

I would make one further revision to my original 3 changes I would like to make. I work for the government. Where I work, each position from bottom to top is generally filled by someone with more experience and better qualifications. This is the case until you get all the way to the top where the qualification to oversee that ministry is that you won a popularity contest. I think for the highest appointments in the country, you must show some minimum qualifications other than eliciting peoples endorsement of you.

 

[Machjo]

I do agree though that party politics has many drawbacks and I am not a fan of it.

Strange that, considering that proportional representaiton is about as partisan a system as we could adopt.

I would make one further revision to my original 3 changes I would like to make. I work for the government. Where I work, each position from bottom to top is generally filled by someone with more experience and better qualifications. This is the case until you get all the way to the top where the qualification to oversee that ministry is that you won a popularity contest. I think for the highest appointments in the country, you must show some minimum qualifications other than eliciting peoples endorsement of you.

I remember reading about a case years ago of a group of 'experts' sent by CIDA to provide drinking water to a local African village (can't remember which country). They went out to build a well and water pump, but neglected to consult 'the illiterate locals' community about it. When they'd realised that the locals chose to dehydrate than touch that pump, they'd then consulted with them to find out the problem, only to realise that the locals believed their ancestros' spirits lived in the ground water and so refused to touch it. As a result, all that money was a waste, and then they had to come up with an alternative plan, to build sieves they could but into the trees which dripped morning dew into bucket. Since that water came from the sky, it was acceptable.

If we start limiting access to government to only 'experts', we're likely to end up with government wasting money on water pumps where sieves might be more appropriate.

 

[ansutherland]

Why should irrational beliefs ever dictate public policy? We need to rid ourselves of this notion that beliefs and ideas are all equal, just different. There are superior belief systems and superior ways of thinking and which is best should be determined on the open market place of ideas much the way scientific inquiry is done.

 

[petros]

I vote for an MP not a party.

 

[ansutherland]

I vote for an MP not a party.

It's probably better than voting for a party in theory, but in practice it seems to be the same thing. In Canada it is seldomly the case that an MP gets a free vote. They have no choice but to vote with the party.

 

[petros]

It's probably better than voting for a party in theory, but in practice it seems to be the same thing. In Canada it is seldomly the case that an MP gets a free vote. They have no choice but to vote with the party.

I used to have an amazing MP who went to bat and all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to support a constituent and would give the shirt off his back to someone on the street.

My latest MP I've only seen once when he and Harper were handing out hotdogs and then engageed in a lie that lead to the province taking the feds to court.

So I how can I be impressed?

 

[Machjo]

Why should irrational beliefs ever dictate public policy? We need to rid ourselves of this notion that beliefs and ideas are all equal, just different. There are superior belief systems and superior ways of thinking and which is best should be determined on the open market place of ideas much the way scientific inquiry is done.

So you're saying they were right in building the water pumps without first consulting with the locals. You do realize the waste of money that was, right?

 

[ansutherland]

So you're saying they were right in building the water pumps without first consulting with the locals. You do realize the waste of money that was, right?

I have no problems with asking the "locals". If their wishes can work at a similar cost with a similar efficiency then fine. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is when the locals say they want a system that is more expensive and less effective and we put it in anyways because of their "beliefs". When the irrational will of the people trumps logic and at the expense of our common good, then we have a problem.