I would amend that to say "to a two term limit or until we get sick of him, which ever comes first.".
"Strategic voting" about the sickest thing I've heard of.
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
I would amend that to say "to a two term limit or until we get sick of him, which ever comes first.".
hi can soldier,i am from the farm,i just am not up on city lingo,what do you want from me?i do not understand,i don't know what you mean.
Strategic voting can't work unless you know how all voters are voting. That's just wasting your vote.
Vote for the Candidate you like, NOT against the one you don't like!
Vote for the Candidate you like, NOT against the one you don't like!
Good one, Nick.
Unlike many you have it figured out.
Ironically, as I was reading somewhere just the other day, proportional representation is most popular with those who AREN'T in power. It's also been found that those who were all gung ho for it before they were in power decided they didn't want it after they attained power.
Actually I find Harper to be VERY transparent. I think he's made it more than clear that he's focused on things that most affect families like good paying jobs and low taxes. It just doesn't get any better than that. While we have to do a little budgeting at times, we've always had enough to cover the necessities with a couple of bucks left over.
And Chretien's second majority was only 38% of the popular vote. What's your point?
You can't suck and blow at the same time, Nick. If A, B and C are running for Prime Minister and A gets 38% and B gets 34% and C gets 28% and you don't agree with A being P.M. who would you select to take the job?
Apparently it wasn't flawed before, during or after Chretien's second majority. It didn't become a flaw until a bunch of whiney left-tards realized that it wasn't always going to work out in their favour.
None. I don't vote for any of the 3 corporate parties.
No. It was flawed back then too. It's been flawed since party politics and the whipped vote came into being.
No. Non-confidence can be called on B C D etc or the GG can take the reigns until we hit the polls again.
And WHAT exactly would be the advantage of B over A? So if Harper wins with a minority and Jr. comes in second, if I understand you correctly, Jr. should be Prime Minister!!??
So you are going to turn over the Gov't to someone who quite possibly knows f**k all about running Gov'ts. GGs are generally OK when it comes to social protocol and public relations and which fork to use at the dining hall, but what the f**k do they know about taking the bull by the horns when things get ugly? Can they roll around in the mud, the blood and the beer?
Jesus, some people can be f**king stupid!
If there is a Conservative minority government and there is a vote of no-confidence in Harper, the Governor General has two options:
1.) Go to another election
2.) The other parties get to decide who would form government and become PM
If option#2 applies and they can't decide then we go to another election.
The GG will not pick option#1 unless Harper was just shy of a majority and he thinks another election would guarantee a majority.
In option#2 there is no way the other parties will disagree unless their respective seat count is very close and there is a strong chance one of them could emerge with a majority in another election.
The likeliest scenario is that they oust Harper and agree that Shiny Pony would lead and form government.