Prince of Wales becomes oldest heir to the Throne for 300 years

[WLDB]

I agree there are a lot of things that could be fixed Nick, it's just not completely unrepresentative if they don't win but still lead. As to being able to win without a majority of votes, they can still only win with the MOST votes, and the only way to fix that would be to go to a two party system. And no offense to our American friends but I don't think that's better.

There is also the possibility of electoral reform an PR. Personally im in favour of that. No party or person should be able to get 100% of the power with as little as 38-39% of the vote. Also, its not just the two party system that is responsible for the problems the US has. With the way their system works they are in a perpetual minority government. Even if one party controls the house, senate and white house the weak party discipline still makes it difficult to accomplish anything in a short amount of time. That was probably their intention when designing it though.

Also, an unelected person doesnt have to run to gain office. In 1984 John Turner became PM after winning the leadership of the Liberal Party. He didnt have a seat and hadnt run for one. The Liberals just happened to be in power so he got the job. That should not have been allowed regardless of party. If he had been an MP and took over after Trudeau retired similar to how Campbell or Martin took over I wouldnt have a problem.

 

[hunboldt]

There is also the possibility of electoral reform an PR. Personally im in favour of that. No party or person should be able to get 100% of the power with as little as 38-39% of the vote. Also, its not just the two party system that is responsible for the problems the US has. With the way their system works they are in a perpetual minority government. Even if one party controls the house, senate and white house the weak party discipline still makes it difficult to accomplish anything in a short amount of time. That was probably their intention when designing it though.

Also, an unelected person doesnt have to run to gain office. In 1984 John Turner became PM after winning the leadership of the Liberal Party. He didnt have a seat and hadnt run for one. The Liberals just happened to be in power so he got the job. That should not have been allowed regardless of party. If he had been an MP and took over after Trudeau retired similar to how Campbell or Martin took over I wouldnt have a problem.

I'm rather amazed that the Conservatives haven't endorsed a
half and half ' system for parliamentary ridings. A lot of the Green vote currently goes to the ND or the Liberals. of course a collation government might not be Harpers' "personal style"

 

[JLM]

I have to say it is a bullsh*t rule then. Why the #1 head honcho of the province doesn't need to be elected is really beyond common sense of democracy. We have elections to pick representatives and an un-elected Premier represents nobody!

Have to disagree K. If a person cannot win a majority in their own riding they should not be allowed to run the entire province. It should be required that to be Premier or a cabinet Minister you be duly elected to parliament. I also think you should be required to run & win in the riding you live in. All this crap about running in 2 or 3 or more by-elections in ridings 100s of miles from your home is utter crap. It's like going to Vegas and being able to play till you win when others are footing the bill. Pure bullsh*t! Then again our entire political system is pure bullsh*t anyway. You can win without a majority and there are no laws requiring you to represent the wishes of your constituents once you get elected. It is a sham! An illusion of choice and representation put forward to appease the masses while they control & fleece us!

She's a Canadian, Nick, she can live in whatever part of the country she chooses. You used to live on Vancouver Island Nick, what business do you have in moving to Alberta and taking a job away from someone there? Any if enough people agree with you, maybe you can get the rules changed. Yeah, you can win without a majority.............perhaps the "winner" should hand it over to someone with a smaller minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -

 

[spaminator]

Lorde - Royals (US Version) - YouTube

lorde royals remix - YouTube

 

[karrie]

She's a Canadian, Nick, she can live in whatever part of the country she chooses. You used to live on Vancouver Island Nick, what business do you have in moving to Alberta and taking a job away from someone there? Any if enough people agree with you, maybe you can get the rules changed. Yeah, you can win without a majority.............perhaps the "winner" should hand it over to someone with a smaller minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -

Moving to do their job. We've moved for a job countless times. And if they can actually move somewhere, uproot their base of community support that most politicians are constantly working on, and STILL win an election, then perhaps they are the right person for the job. It's one thing about politics that never displeases me... seeing a politician treat it as a job they're hired to do, rather than some entitlement to 'lead'. If they're never willing to move to where someone wants to hire them, then are they really the person you want to hire for the job? Personally, I don't want the guy who just takes whatever is geographically convenient.

 

[JLM]

The same party would still be in power, it'd just have a different head. If a person who is not a member of parliament or the provincial legislature gets the job they cannot be held accountable by the legislature. They cannot attend question periods, take part in debates or do anything really that involves the legislature. If they cant do that part they shouldnt have the job until they can get a seat. In the meantime the ranking person gets the job. It isnt all that representative. In Canadian history there have only been two true majority governments. All the others had well under 50% of the vote. Reducing it even more and giving the job to someone who couldnt even get a seat does not sound representative to me.

Yeah, but for the exception of a very few days that didn't happen here, she ran and won very handily in another riding. It can't get much better than that, but what I find sadly lacking is to my knowledge those who disapprove of her haven't come up with a name of someone more capable of leading the party.

Moving to do their job. We've moved for a job countless times. And if they can actually move somewhere, uproot their base of community support that most politicians are constantly working on, and STILL win an election, then perhaps they are the right person for the job. It's one thing about politics that never displeases me... seeing a politician treat it as a job they're hired to do, rather than some entitlement to 'lead'. If they're never willing to move to where someone wants to hire them, then are they really the person you want to hire for the job? Personally, I don't want the guy who just takes whatever is geographically convenient.

Your sagacity continues to amaze!!! -

 

[hunboldt]

Yeah, but for the exception of a very few days that didn't happen here, she ran and won very handily in another riding. It can't get much better than that, but what I find sadly lacking is to my knowledge those who disapprove of her haven't come up with a name of someone more capable of leading the party.



Your sagacity continues to amaze!!! -

Again, the principle was established in 1926 that you cannot function as a prime minister or Premier in Canada until you run elsewhere- and win the riding the Governor or lieutenant governor will insist that you designate an acting Premier /Prime minister, responsible to the respective assembly.

 

[JLM]

Again, the principle was established in 1926 that you cannot function as a prime minister or Premier in Canada until you run elsewhere- and win the riding the Governor or lieutenant governor will insist that you designate an acting Premier /Prime minister, responsible to the respective assembly.

Which she successfully did so I don't see the problem the poster brought up!

 

[hunboldt]

Which she successfully did so I don't see the problem the poster brought up!

I believe tober is a He.
Please leave me out of the ongoing mud sling.

 

[JLM]

I believe tober is a He.
Please leave me out of the ongoing mud sling.

I wasn't referring to Tober, but the premier! -

 

[PoliticalNick]

I agree there are a lot of things that could be fixed Nick, it's just not completely unrepresentative if they don't win but still lead. As to being able to win without a majority of votes, they can still only win with the MOST votes, and the only way to fix that would be to go to a two party system. And no offense to our American friends but I don't think that's better.

We don't have to go to a 2 party system, we could use a run off until somebody got a true majority. Personally I would like a NO party system where every candidate ran as an independent, then you might see them actually represent their constituents instead of toeing the party line.

She's a Canadian, Nick, she can live in whatever part of the country she chooses. You used to live on Vancouver Island Nick, what business do you have in moving to Alberta and taking a job away from someone there? Any if enough people agree with you, maybe you can get the rules changed. Yeah, you can win without a majority.............perhaps the "winner" should hand it over to someone with a smaller minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -

I don't have an issue with her moving anywhere she wants. My problem is that she didn't move to Kelowna and that someone the people already elected was forced by the party to step down so she could run in the by-election. It just shouldn't be allowed. If that person had to step down for legitimate reason fine, but the seat should be filled by somebody who actually lives in the riding. And I don't mean someone who rents an apartment but is never there because they really live in Burnaby. It shold be required you OWN your primary residence within the riding.

I'm not sure how we have moved so far away from true representation of the constituents but we really need to get back to it. This sham of fraudulent residences and running in different places until you win needs to go. You may think she can represent Kelowna when she lives in Burnaby but in reality she doesn't give a crap about the constituents, it was merely a political ploy for power.

Yeah, but for the exception of a very few days that didn't happen here, she ran and won very handily in another riding. It can't get much better than that, but what I find sadly lacking is to my knowledge those who disapprove of her haven't come up with a name of someone more capable of leading the party.

Do you really have your head that far up your a$$? She had to run twice to get elected and only won the second time because the people in that riding would elect a ham sandwich if it was in the Liberal party. It is a fraud! She didn't move to Kelowna! She lost on election day and that should be the end of it. You either win or lose and if you don't win a seat you can't be premier. If she can't be premier then they can find the next best person in the party. Too bad if it isn't the golden girl, thems the breaks! I'm not sure why something that seems so common sense is so difficult for you to understand. Or do you disagree simply because you support the liberals? Would you be arguing i'm right if it was the party you didn't support doing this?

 

[hunboldt]

I wasn't referring to Tober, but the premier! -

oKAY..to run in a 'safe seat' is the best of a bad solution set, but its is the best we have right now. a half list half riding MP /mla offers an aulturnative.

 

[JLM]

We don't have to go to a 2 party system, we could use a run off until somebody got a true majority. Personally I would like a NO party system where every candidate ran as an independent, then you might see them actually represent their constituents instead of toeing the party line.



I don't have an issue with her moving anywhere she wants. My problem is that she didn't move to Kelowna and that someone the people already elected was forced by the party to step down so she could run in the by-election. It just shouldn't be allowed. If that person had to step down for legitimate reason fine, but the seat should be filled by somebody who actually lives in the riding. And I don't mean someone who rents an apartment but is never there because they really live in Burnaby. It shold be required you OWN your primary residence within the riding.

I'm not sure how we have moved so far away from true representation of the constituents but we really need to get back to it. This sham of fraudulent residences and running in different places until you win needs to go. You may think she can represent Kelowna when she lives in Burnaby but in reality she doesn't give a crap about the constituents, it was merely a political ploy for power.



Do you really have your head that far up your a$$? She had to run twice to get elected and only won the second time because the people in that riding would elect a ham sandwich if it was in the Liberal party. It is a fraud! She didn't move to Kelowna! She lost on election day and that should be the end of it. You either win or lose and if you don't win a seat you can't be premier. If she can't be premier then they can find the next best person in the party. Too bad if it isn't the golden girl, thems the breaks! I'm not sure why something that seems so common sense is so difficult for you to understand. Or do you disagree simply because you support the liberals? Would you be arguing i'm right if it was the party you didn't support doing this?

I partly agree with what you say, Nick, but in this case there are other considerations, firstly Christy Clark pretty well won the election in May single handedly against what was seen by the pollsters as insurmountable odds. She has to be given credit for that. She lost her own seat (which by the way WASN'T in her home riding to begin with) where SHE spent virtually no time campaigning. She has followed the rules which are the same for all politicians be they Liberal, Cons or N.D.P. etc. so the playing field is level. Of course when she in the West Kelowna riding she didn't own property there at the time but she is planning to buy a house and live there, but you might appreciate that could take a few months. Had she have won Vancouver - Point Grey would YOU really have accepted that as she didn't live there? As far as run off elections are concerned it's been proven that over the long haul the results wouldn't be any better than "first past the post" and the expense would be intolerable. Right now to have a provincial election costs several $million, do you really want to double or triple that, when at the "end of the day" the results aren't going to be much different in most cases? In any case I think we have a strong politician to run the province, which is the way it should be. With Adrian Dix we'd have just ended up with more bureaucrats serving more minorities. We want a balanced situation of employment, prosperity and a safe and healthy environment and I believe with Christy that is achievable. And she's not going to bow for the Union "heavies".

 

[Blackleaf]

It's actually quite legitimate, Nick, if you read the rules. Premiers are NOT elected, M.L.A.s are.

In the Westminster system of Britain and Canada the only people who can vote for a Prime Minister are those who live in his constituency, and they can vote for him as their MP. We vote for PARTIES, not PMs.

I wonder when it was that a British or Canadian PM ever lost his seat during a General Election but his party remained in power. It's a very rare and unusual occurence. I suppose PMs always run in safe seats.

 

[JLM]

In the Westminster system of Britain and Canada the only people who can vote for a Prime Minister are those who live in his constituency, and they can vote for him as their MP. We vote for PARTIES, not PMs.

I wonder when it was that a British or Canadian PM ever lost his seat during a General Election but his party remained in power. It's a very rare and unusual occurence. I suppose PMs always run in safe seats.

It's basically the same system we have in Canada, only 1/308th (roughly) get to vote for the Prime Minister. I wouldn't go quite as far as to say "very rare" but it is quite unusual and often indicates a poor leader has been chosen.

 

[Blackleaf]

It's basically the same system we have in Canada, only 1/308th (roughly) get to vote for the Prime Minister. I wouldn't go quite as far as to say "very rare" but it is quite unusual and often indicates a poor leader has been chosen.

In Britain only around 1/650th get to vote for him, when you take into account that we have 650 MPs.

 

[JLM]

In Britain only around 1/650th get to vote for him, when you take into account that we have 650 MPs.

That would equate pretty close, your population is approximately double ours.

 

[tober]

The issue with a non-elected leader is that it is undemocratic. Our system is that we are governed by the people we elect, period.

I disagree with the notion that we trust the people we elect so the people they appoint are ok. That is (IMO) the worst kind of cronyism. I don't necessarily trust people I vote for. It might be a protest vote. They might be the best choice out of a bunch of people that I do not trust (often he case). I might just prefer their party, Only rarely will I even know them. If the 'friend of a friend' idea spread pretty soon our leaders would be so remote from those we vote for that Dear Leader would be a friend of a cousin of a guy who married someone's sister, and democracy would be dead. Our ability to choose our leaders would be forfeit.

 

[JLM]

The issue with a non-elected leader is that it is undemocratic. Our system is that we are governed by the people we elect, period.

I disagree with the notion that we trust the people we elect so the people they appoint are ok. That is (IMO) the worst kind of cronyism. I don't necessarily trust people I vote for. It might be a protest vote. They might be the best choice out of a bunch of people that I do not trust (often he case). I might just prefer their party, Only rarely will I even know them. If the 'friend of a friend' idea spread pretty soon our leaders would be so remote from those we vote for that Dear Leader would be a friend of a cousin of a guy who married someone's sister, and democracy would be dead. Our ability to choose our leaders would be forfeit.

None of this "holds a candle" to what really happened here several years ago. A guy in the Greater Vancouver area ran as a Liberal in the Federal Election and won the seat, but in an Election where the Liberals were the opposition. Within two weeks he crossed the floor to the Conservative side without consulting the electorate who voted for him because he was running for the Liberal party. That is about as slimy as it gets. (Oh by the way his name is David Emerson)

 

[Blackleaf]

The issue with a non-elected leader is that it is undemocratic.

I disagree.

In Britain and Canada we vote for a certain party, usually because we like that party's policies. The leader of that party usually reflects the party's policies, so a lot of the time it doesn't matter who the leader is. We go for the party and its policies, not a person.

Our system is better than that in America, in which Americans elect a person - the President - rather than a political party with certain policies. They tend to focus more on the personality of the candidates and vote for the one they like best, and policies are less important.

In Britain and Canada it's the governing party and its policies which are deemed important.

In America it's the personality of the person standing for office which counts.