Yes, that would appear to be what I'm saying...if you read my words with your Liberal Party/anti-Alberta glasses on but of course, that is not what I'm saying.
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
Yes, that would appear to be what I'm saying...if you read my words with your Liberal Party/anti-Alberta glasses on but of course, that is not what I'm saying.
Must look interesting out on the floor with the Layton nose in a cast and Harpo's bent out of joint
Re: Proportional Representation
One more time: I am not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I have never posted something negative toward Alberta.
And yes, it’s exactly what you’re saying—the western provinces need more representation, and you want to take Ontario and Québec’s representation away. You, and others with your position on the issue, have a deep-rooted grudge against Central and Eastern Canada. It’s truly sad that anyone here would want to say to Ontarians or Québeckers: “Hey, you’re not as important as we are—your votes don’t count as much as ours do.”
The fact that you use the term ‘Kweebeck’ demonstrates your resentment and bias against Eastern Canada.
It’s called a representative democracy, get used to it.
One more time: I am not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I have never posted something negative toward Alberta.
And yes, it’s exactly what you’re saying—the western provinces need more representation, and you want to take Ontario and Québec’s representation away. You, and others with your position on the issue, have a deep-rooted grudge against Central and Eastern Canada. It’s truly sad that anyone here would want to say to Ontarians or Québeckers: “Hey, you’re not as important as we are—your votes don’t count as much as ours do.”
The fact that you use the term ‘Kweebeck’ demonstrates your resentment and bias against Eastern Canada.
It’s called a representative democracy, get used to it.
Wasn't that hard a hit - Harpos clealry has buns of intestinal fortitude - Jack's face and bone stricture has softened in the last few weeks from leaping from TV camera to TV camera - - Backbone problems, some attribute to lack of calcium - I would say they were incorrect - Clearly jack read an elceoral map -
PS - I am not a fan of Harpo. Less so of Iggy the wonderdog.
Last election I voted Green - Even though Lizzie is a genuine 100% Space Cadet -
Nope. Try again.
Others with my position???? I don't personally know anybody that agrees with my position on the topic. I do believe Alvin Toffler agrees with me.
You really should make an effort to understand somebody's position before you try and criticize it. If you actually bothered to read my posts instead of blathering on about what you think I said or what you think I meant you would have read the following comment...
or
Like most irrational people, you lack the ability to to be able to differentiate between an observation and a judgment. I understand that and I realize that this is what allows you to be a Liberal Party supporter ( your feeble attempts to deny it notwithstanding).
Just goes to show how little you know. I started using the term Kweebeck years ago and the reason was to make fun of Preston Manning, not to make fun of Kweebeck. The fact that it drives Liberal Party and BQ supporters nuts is the only reason I kept using it.
Why not? Having all those that have a last name that starts with "A" vote for candidates makes as much sense as having people living in an area. My next door neighbor and I have nothing in common and don't want the same things from our federal politicians.
We could have people vote for candidates based on income, based on education, based on age, based on profession....
The only reason our political system was divided along geographic lines was because communications and travel made it more effective that way and land was particularly important years ago. It made sense psychologically as much as anything else.
Re: Dishonest Statements, Insults and Harassment
I very much disagree.
Constituencies ensure that a member of the House of Commons accounts to a particular group of electors, so that he or she can be receptive to that one group of Canadians, and to ensure that the interests of that constituency, the particular interests of that community, are represented. We are far more likely to have a concern that is shared amongst members of a community than we are to have a concern shared amongst people with names that start with ‘X’.
Moreover, the change that you seem to wish for would do nothing to change western representation—each western vote would continue to count for just the same as they do now, as would central and eastern votes. Doing away with constituencies would only do away with members of the Commons being accountable to the people—rather, they would only be accountable to the party, and that would be a most unfortunate change. (Not that there isn’t a massive amount of party paramountcy now, but it would be largely exacerbated by such a change.)
Also:
I have stated on several occasions that I am not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I have not supported the Liberal Party’s House of Commons caucus since mid-session of the 39th Parliament of Canada. I was displeased with the leadership of The Honourable Stéphane Dion P.C., and even moreso with the leadership of Mr. Michael Ignatieff M.P. (Etobicoke—Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
I very much disagree.
Constituencies ensure that a member of the House of Commons accounts to a particular group of electors, so that he or she can be receptive to that one group of Canadians, and to ensure that the interests of that constituency, the particular interests of that community, are represented. We are far more likely to have a concern that is shared amongst members of a community than we are to have a concern shared amongst people with names that start with ‘X’.
Moreover, the change that you seem to wish for would do nothing to change western representation—each western vote would continue to count for just the same as they do now, as would central and eastern votes. Doing away with constituencies would only do away with members of the Commons being accountable to the people—rather, they would only be accountable to the party, and that would be a most unfortunate change. (Not that there isn’t a massive amount of party paramountcy now, but it would be largely exacerbated by such a change.)
Also:
Please do not misrepresent quotes of my contributions.Cannuck said:
Once more, you prove that you cannot debate without insult and harassment.Cannuck said:
“[F]eeble attempts”?Cannuck said:
I have stated on several occasions that I am not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I have not supported the Liberal Party’s House of Commons caucus since mid-session of the 39th Parliament of Canada. I was displeased with the leadership of The Honourable Stéphane Dion P.C., and even moreso with the leadership of Mr. Michael Ignatieff M.P. (Etobicoke—Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Again, wrong! Right now, a vote in Alberta counts as a vote in Alberta. That is only because we have decided that that is the way it should be.
Who said anything about doing away with constituencies? What I said was that basing the constituency on geographical considerations has caused problems and there are far better ways to do it instead of blindly holding on to the past.
You can claim anything you want. That doesn't make it true. I'm Neil Armstrong.
Nonsense—members of a regional community are far more likely to unite under a common cause (for example, to respond to an economic event unique to that region). Your suggestions of ‘alternative’ constituencies would have the same problems that you challenge regional constituencies for—the accusations of unfairness made by so many members above would be completely untempered by such a change.
Once more, nonsense. Even if constituencies were redrawn, the votes of Ontarians and Québeckers (whether or not the constituences are regional, by income, or any other suggested form), those central votes would overwhelm even the most united Western Canada support for a particular party. I doubt much would change—“Hey, Ontario and Québec decided the election, but at least it doesn’t say that on paper!”
It has caused no more problems than would any number of other suggestions.
And again you accuse me of dishonesty.
Are you absolutely incapable of civil debate? I haven’t insulted you here, so why the resentment?
I don't. I simply think that it's ridiculous when ON &QC have more say over everyone else's regions than the people of those regions. It's like Joe Fishmonger having more say than Fred Wheatfarmer in Fred's region. Get it yet? Like I implied earlier, what does a Torontonian office manager know about when to run around the field in the combine? You apparently don't mind someone from QC having as much say about what goes on with BC fisheries or whatever as you do. I think it's stupid. Canada is a collection of different regions. Not one region is the same as another, so they should be treated as differently but equal. As it sits, the only region that's treated differently is Quebec.
You are completely missing my point.
I disagree and I don't care if you are from Mars.
Nope. It's democracy if everyone's vote is equal. Ours aren't.
Whoopee.
Sorry. You are ASSuming you know what I am trying to point out. You're wrong. Things are not equal in Canada as it is. Ontario and Quebec were favored from day 1 and still are and because they have control of parliament it will stay that way. What I suggested is that the different regions as well as the populations be considered in policies.
For instance, because some nut in Quebec went and shot 14 women, the Gliberals got all reactionary and implemented the firearms registry. And that in turn pretty much made a lot of rural folks victims as well. If the feds wanted to do something constructive, they'd have told QC to smarten up about firearms in Montreal instead of treating farmers and ranchers like a bunch of Lepines.
The only way to achieve that goal, AnnaG (i.e., strip the rights of citizens to vote for national issues, and only permit votes on issues that pertain directly to their own region), is to end Confederation entirely and create 13 independent formerly-Canadian jurisdictions.
Now we’re getting somewhere! :smile:
I think that redistributing the Senate seats would make the Senate more in keeping with the vision of the Fathers of Confederation, anyway—it is supposed to a chamber of regional representation, and it was—but as provinces were added to the Confederation, it seems that the numbers became somewhat skewed against the ‘newcomers’.
That's what local governments are for.
That's because you still see things based on geography. That's not surprising. You have never struck me as being someone that is open minded and willing to change.
I'm accusing you of being a Liberal. If you want to equate Liberals with dishonesty that is entirely your prerogative.
Well, you haven't insulted me, that is true but it's not for lack of effort. Your statement...
...does more than imply that those that disagree with you are uneducated. Since I don't particularly value your opinion (being a Liberal and all), I don't take offense to your personal attacks. I do find it quite amusing though that you want to pout when it's thrown back at you (another Liberal trait). If you are interested in a serious debate about this issue let me know. You will certainly have to raise the bar (which I think you are capable of) and you will also have to get over yourself.
Yeah, call me a kid because I don't think things are fair. Idiot.
As I pointed out in another thread things are NOT equal in Canada. For instance, my vote is not the same as someone from PEI and your vote is not the same as someone in Nunavut.
BC has a population of 4,435,000 and has 36 seats. That's about 124,000 people per seat
PEI has a population of about 140,000 and has 4 seats. That's about 35,000 people per seat.
Want to keep telling me that everyone's vote is equal? I think whoever developed the current system of representation made it pretty convoluted. Surely someone could convulute it further so that regions are equally represented.
I don't think so. I think it's just a matter of Ottawa giving up some of its power. But that'll never happen, I don't think. So things will stay unfair and ON&QC will have more say over what goes on in BC, AB, NS, NB, etc. that the people of the ROC do.