Atlantic Party of Canada

[robbie25]

absolutely nothing, unless of course you're a weak minded idiot who blames everything on someone or something else.

Seems the author of the OP has a problem understanding that it's the electorate that keep putting the cons/libs into the House.

What exactly are you basing your statements on? The only thing I'm "blaming" is a political system that is broken, and does not represent me. It may represent you, but this party is not for you.

Of course the elctorate keeps putting the cons/libs in the House. We are not innocent victims here, and you'll never hear me say otherwise Our voice has not been taken, so much as given away. And that's why we exist, to give ourselves our own voice back, instead of outsourcing it to others who can't speak for us.

This is not about xenophobic, Atlantic Canadian regionalism, based on casting blame on some Federal bogeyman who is conspiring to keep us down. I state that very clearly on the website that it is not the belief of the APC that our lack of political representation is not the result of a malevolent conspriacy designed to keep us in chains......rather, it is the inevitable result of the realities of the system we live in, more an unfortunate consequence then a deliberate act.

But from our perspective, the fact that our political neglect is a result of an unfortunate accident, rather then a deliberate act, is little consolation. The end result is the same, and the end result is all that matters.

The APC is not about casting blame or posing ourselves as martyrs, or victims. It is simply about recognizing that the current system doesn't work for us, and offering a solution.

I served in the Canadian Forces for 6 years. I fought in Afghanistan in 2007 for our values, and our way of life. And yet, the more I look around, the more I feel the need to fight for "our values" here at home. The Canadian political system as a whole is broken. Why do you think the last election had the lowest voter turnout since Confederation? In fact, it was simply the latest in a neverending downtrend of voter turnout where the most recent election takes that distinctino from the one before that.

Canadians are fed up with the system, and their showing their displeasure by avoiding the polls like the plague. It's easy to say something like "well, if they don't vote, then they have no right to complain" and maybe there's some validity to that. But they also need palatable options. The vast majority of alternate parties are much too radical for the mainstream voters to stomach, and so they must plug their nose and vote for the status quo....or don't vote at all. And that's what we're trying to do. There is nothing radical about our demands, really nothing more then to have a voice at the political table. I don't think that's too much to ask. we recognize that we live in the greatest country in the world, and we are thankful for that. But we still need a voice, which we currently don't have.

Personally, I think that Canada as a whole would be better governed by drawing it's political boundries more along regional lines then the current system we have, which is.......what, exactly? What values do either the Libs or the Cons really have? what do they stand for except trying to embarress the other. Canada is much too large and diverse to have one national party from BC to NFLD purport to represent all of us. But really, how the rest of the country chooses to organize their political participation is not really our concern.

We're not trying to change the whole country....just our little piece of it.

 

[Machjo]

I think the solution is not to have parties for each little region, but rather to weaken party power. A first step I'd say is to vote in more independent candidates and propose that party names be removed from ballots. Those would just be the two first steps. Beyond that, we'd need to look at some of the ideas here too:

Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Plurality-at-large voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If any party is to be created, I'd like to say a single-issue party emerge whose focus would be to weaken the party system. Essentially it would be a kind of suicidal party aiming to take all other parties down with it.

Among the first things such a party could do would be to remove party names from ballots and abandon party discipline within the party. Assuming it even accomplishes that much, it could then proceed from there.

 

[robbie25]

I think the solution is not to have parties for each little region, but rather to weaken party power. A first step I'd say is to vote in more independent candidates and propose that party names be removed from ballots. Those would just be the two first steps. Beyond that, we'd need to look at some of the ideas here too:

I agree with you. In fact, if party power were not so strong there would be no need for parties such as ours. But unfortunately, I can't foresee a time when the parties relax the party discipline enough to make our democracy start to actually be democratic....and I'm unwilling to sit and wait for that to happen.

 

[Machjo]

I agree with you. In fact, if party power were not so strong there would be no need for parties such as ours. But unfortunately, I can't foresee a time when the parties relax the party discipline enough to make our democracy start to actually be democratic....and I'm unwilling to sit and wait for that to happen.

And we have none to blame but ourselves for that; we're the ones who keep voting in party hacks. Until we start to vote on principle rather than strategically for the second-worst candidate so as to keep the worst one out, this problem will continue.

Personally, I don't care who wins the election in my riding. I vote for who I think is the best candidate regardless of party affiliation and even regardless of his chances of winning, even if it risks splitting the vote between him and the second worst candidate, resulting in the worst taking the win. The reason for this is that should I vote for the second worst, then I'm sending a message that the supporters of the second-worst candidate can always win by fearmongering about the worst candidate. If however I'm willing to let the worst candidate win if that's what it takes for peopel to smarten up, then let's do it. Eventually the supporters of the second-worst candidate would realise that rallying strategic support doesn't work and that therefore they might as well vote their conscience. Then we might start getting some good candidates into Parliament. But the first step is to put an end to strategic voting. Vote your conscience and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[robbie25]

And we have none to blame but ourselves for that; we're the ones who keep voting in party hacks. Until we start to vote on principle rather than strategically for the second-worst candidate so as to keep the worst one out, this problem will continue.

Personally, I don't care who wins the election in my riding. I vote for who I think is the best candidate regardless of party affiliation and even regardless of his chances of winning, even if it risks splitting the vote between him and the second worst candidate, resulting in the worst taking the win. The reason for this is that should I vote for the second worst, then I'm sending a message that the supporters of the second-worst candidate can always win by fearmongering about the worst candidate. If however I'm willing to let the worst candidate win if that's what it takes for peopel to smarten up, then let's do it. Eventually the supporters of the second-worst candidate would realise that rallying strategic support doesn't work and that therefore they might as well vote their conscience. Then we might start getting some good candidates into Parliament. But the first step is to put an end to strategic voting. Vote your conscience and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would entail too much common sense to work in Federal politics, Machjo. The fact is, I'm sure most MP's would LIKE to vote their conscience....but they can't.

The system will NEVER change as long as we vote for any of the national parties. The 2007 budget is a good example.

That budget took $1.1 billion from NB, and $1.4 billion each from NFLD and NS.....over 4% of 2008 GDP for each province. I mean, come on..... If they're not going to vote against THAT, then what will they vote against?...the answer is, nothing, if it is against party wishes.

8 out of 9 Atlantic MP's voted for that budget, only Bill Casey had the political courage to oppose it...and just to make sure that nobody voted against the wishes of the party again, Bill Casey was quickly made an example of...he was kicked out of the party and is currently out of Federal politics.......think about that.

Hoping for these people to see reason is not going to work.

If not now, when?..... If not us, who?

They're certainly not going to do it for us.

 

[Machjo]

That would entail too much common sense to work in Federal politics, Machjo. The fact is, I'm sure most MP's would LIKE to vote their conscience....but they can't.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about MP's, but voters. If voters should vote that way, then they'll be voting in that kind of MP. But if an MP knows he's in only because of his party label, then sucking up to the party is indeed the way to go. first off, the voters have to make it clear to him that they are in fact voting for him and not his party. Should the local electorate fail to do that, then a smart MP who wants to win the nex election will quickly realise that the way to win is to suck up to the party.

The system will NEVER change as long as we vote for any of the national parties. The 2007 budget is a good example.

That budget took $1.1 billion from NB, and $1.4 billion each from NFLD and NS.....over 4% of 2008 GDP for each province. I mean, come on..... If they're not going to vote against THAT, then what will they vote against?...the answer is, nothing, if it is against party wishes.

8 out of 9 Atlantic MP's voted for that budget, only Bill Casey had the political courage to oppose it...and just to make sure that nobody voted against the wishes of the party again, Bill Casey was quickly made an example of...he was kicked out of the party and is currently out of Federal politics.......think about that.

Hoping for these people to see reason is not going to work.

If not now, when?..... If not us, who?

They're certainly not going to do it for us.

There's nothing wrong with voting for a member of a national party as long as you're voting for him based on his own personal character and not his party affiliation. The problem comes when most voters couldn't care less if their MP is a complete moron as long as he's wearing the right party colours. While I will vote for a party member, the courage to run as an independent will always impress me. While it doesn't guarantee my vote, it's certainly a plus, just as while party membership doesn't guarantee a loss of my vote, it's certainly a strike against it.

 

[gerryh]

That would entail too much common sense to work in Federal politics, Machjo. The fact is, I'm sure most MP's would LIKE to vote their conscience....but they can't.

The system will NEVER change as long as we vote for any of the national parties. The 2007 budget is a good example.

That budget took $1.1 billion from NB, and $1.4 billion each from NFLD and NS.....over 4% of 2008 GDP for each province. I mean, come on..... If they're not going to vote against THAT, then what will they vote against?...the answer is, nothing, if it is against party wishes.

8 out of 9 Atlantic MP's voted for that budget, only Bill Casey had the political courage to oppose it...and just to make sure that nobody voted against the wishes of the party again, Bill Casey was quickly made an example of...he was kicked out of the party and is currently out of Federal politics.......think about that.

Hoping for these people to see reason is not going to work.

If not now, when?..... If not us, who?

They're certainly not going to do it for us.

Got a question for ya....if every east coast MP had voted against the budget, would it have made a difference?

 

[robbie25]

Got a question for ya....if every east coast MP had voted against the budget, would it have made a difference?

Good question. The answer is no, the budget still would have passed. I am quite certain though, that even if their votes were the deciding factor, they still would have voted for it, but that's neither here nor there.

A better question would be, how would that vote fare if a party like the APC had been around then? Well, first of all, let's say they had a majority of AC seats, say, 25 out of 32. If that were the case, they would have been able to defeat the bill outright....but here's the thing: If we had a party like the APC then, with even, say, 20 seats, then that amended to the Atlantic Accord would not have even been there in the first place.

Obviously, even if the APC held all 32 seats alloted to the Atlantic provinces, we would not be able to dictate policy or unilaterally pass or defeat anything. But just by having those seats, we would preempt most harmful or dangerous legislation before it even happens. With a block of say, 20 seats, that is a significant amount, significant enough so that policy drafters in the ruling parties would have to consider how what their doing impacts AC, and factor in their support or opposition.

In effect, Atlantic Canada would be instantly transformed from an area that can be easily ignored at little political cost, to an area whose opinion must be considered for every piece of legislation, and who can only be ignored at great political risk. Even if a motion passes wiith APC opposition, lawmakers would be very leery of displeasing the party too much (very similar to their treatment of the Bloc now, and for the same reason) because one day they will need those 20 or so votes.

That is the power of leveraging your political voice by consolidating power in a regional party. Policy makers will need to think long and hard about the "Atlantic effect" before drafting any legislation, and that alone will temper any actions that would be harmful to AC before it even reaches the House. The benefits of that alone will go a long way to improving our livelihood.

And of course, legislation will from time to time make it to the house that is harmful to AC, and of course the APC will oppose it. And there are times such legislation will pass. And that is reality, we cannot ever expect (nor necessarily want to) dictate terms to the rest of Canada with impunity. There will be times when legislation passes that the APC opposes, that's democracy.....but at least our voice was heard. At least SOMEBODY stood up and said "No" for us on our behalf. And at the end of the day, that is all we can ask for.... but at the same time, that is what we need to demand as well.

No group in history has ever bettered themselves without a political voice. Civil rights movements, and womens rights movements are just examples, groups whose movements could not ever hope to succeed until the groups they represented got that simple, but precious thing: The Vote..... to be able to stand up and have their voice heard in the political process. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not for a second comparing the oppression of women and African American/Canadians have suffered in the past, to the current situation Atlantic Canadians find themselves in, at all....my point in the example was that neither of these groups could improve their lot in life until they were able to speak for themselves in their own political affairs.

And such is the same for us....As of right now, we do not have anybody able to speak for us in our own political affairs. Luckily for us, we are blessed to live in a country where we are able to easily change that. The only thing keeping Atlantic Canadians from participating in their own political process is Atlantic Canadians themselves. The power to change that is ours.

 

[taxslave]

You are confusing seats ALLOTED to Atlantic Canada with seats REPRESENTING Atlantic Canada. They are not one and the same. As mentioned above, with the Party Discipline system, it doesn't matter how many seats are ALLOTED to Atlantic Canada if they all vote the way that that Party tells them too. It doesn't matter if we have 100 seats if all the seats vote contrary to our best interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think the west is represented fairly? We are short over a dozen seats so the status quo is not exactly working in our favor is it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Atlantic Accord, it most certainly WAS taken from us. It doesn't matter what form the money came in, the face is, the money was promised in 2005, and was signed by the Fed at that point. Once that is done, the money belongs to the provinces. If you thik THAT deal was unfair, then take up your case the with 2005 Federal government who signed it. But once it was signed, it became Atlantic Canada's money. Just because you, or others, didn't like the deal doesn't mean the Fed can unilaterally break it and give us less money then they originally promised.....and if the Fed DOES do that (which they did) then I expect the person I elect to speak for me in Ottawa to fight tooth and nail against it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can something that was never given to you be "taken"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen, you are not understanding basic democracy. It is not our job to do what is best for Alberta, or BC, or Ontario, or even the nation as a whole. It is our job to look out for us, just like you'd better believe Ontario is looking out for Ontario, and the West is looking out for the West. That is how democracy works....we elect people to represent out interests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the ones you elected are not doing their job. Perhaps you elected the wrong talking heads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are looking at this from the West's perspective, but you are denying our right to look at this from Atlantic Canada's perspective.

You have no interest in changing the status quo...it works for you. And if you feel it DOESN'T work for you, then by all means, use your political power to try to change it in a way that does work for you....I'm not begrudging you that, that's how democracy works. But the status quo doesn't work for us, and we are going to use our political power to try to change it for a way that does...as is our right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the status quo doesn't work for us due to a lack of democratic representation which is being maintained by those elected reps from East of Ontario that just happen to out number the west. So much for democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this is the attitude we are trying to fight again. We don't consider ourselves "just lucky to be here" and won't sit down and shut up. Your attitude is emblematic of the larger issue: That is, "oh, poor old Atlantic Canada.....what are they complaining about, we give them all this money etc....here, have another handout and begone"


We don't want another handout and we don't need it. We want true, sustainable prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So give back the equalization money. We can spend it reducing our own debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for the record, after Quebec's $8 billion in equalization payments this year, the next highest receipiant is Manitoba with about $1.8 billion. So this is not just an Atlantic Canadian issue.

Thats true. The federal government has always stolen from the west and given to the east. Which coast did the feds slap with a prohibition for off shore oil drilling?

 

[petros]

Arctic Coast

 

[taxslave]

Thats true. The federal government has always stolen from the west and given to the east. Which coast did the feds slap with a prohibition for off shore oil drilling?

Arctic Coast

No. BC. There has been drilling offshore in the arctic for about 20 years. It stopped simply because the feds are not willing to make progress on a pipeline to carry the oil to market. more concerned about land claims than the economy.

 

[robbie25]

Thats true. The federal government has always stolen from the west and given to the east. Which coast did the feds slap with a prohibition for off shore oil drilling?

Please understand, I'm not marginilizing the problems those in the West may have. I'm not saying "Us in Atlantic Canada have concerns with how the system works, and those should trump everyone else's"

The thing is, the problem's of the West are not my concern....not that they're not legit, just that it's not my job to campaign for them.

The creation of the APC has nothing to do with you guy's. It is about us, and how the system doesn't work for us, and so we are agitating for change, as is our democratic right.I'm no scholar of Western issues, but it sounds like you have legit complaints about your situation as well. If that is the case, then I fully encourage you to get involved politically, and use the avenues available to you to seek whatever solution you see fit.

But just because you may feel OK with not agitating for change you feel is necessairy for the advancement of your region, does not mean that we shoudl do the same.

What makes you think the west is represented fairly? We are short over a dozen seats so the status quo is not exactly working in our favor is it?

Then change it

 

[Machjo]

No. BC. There has been drilling offshore in the arctic for about 20 years. It stopped simply because the feds are not willing to make progress on a pipeline to carry the oil to market. more concerned about land claims than the economy.

Then why ae the First Nations who own the land not getting involved? Have they not put out requests from investment from oil companies? Or is it that with all the court cases neither side in the dispute has time for that owing to all the energy being put into the dispute thus stalling development on both sides? What does the law say? As per any treaties, whom does the land belong to? Why can't the courts make a decision and get it over with so that we can all get on with our lives and start developing, whether on federal or native land.

 

[gerryh]

screw it.... cut off equalization and let the chips lay where they may.