"Strategic voting" about the sickest thing I've heard of.

[WLDB]

I would amend that to say "to a two term limit or until we get sick of him, which ever comes first.".

Id go with the latter. Im not a fan of term limits. If people want to keep electing the same person over and over that should be their choice. Telling people they can no longer vote for some person does not seem democratic to me.

And what would give Jr. the right to oust Harper? What situation do you find a newby walk in off the street and take over the C.E.O.'s job? Altogether too much of this "Tail wagging the dog"!

The government isnt a corporation and has very different rules. The constitution allows for these things to happen and they have happened before. Its been a long time since the last time but it did happen and can again. All you need to form government is the confidence of the house. You can come in second and still get that if you have the support (whether its formal or informal) from another party which combined forms a majority. So what gives him the right in this hypothetical scenario? Having the confidence of the House of Commons.

Might as well try it. What we have doesn't seem to work too well.

The way the US does it doesnt work so well either.

Yeah, a non confidence vote led by two people who LOST the election- About the same amount of credibility as the convicted axe murderer appealing his/her conviction!

Thats the way the system works. You dont have to like it but it is what it is and always has been.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Stephen Harper has proven to have vision, integrity, courage, comprehension, eloquence and patriotism for Canada.

The man has zero integrity. His lack of courage is demonstrated by his repeated use of hired help to take the fall for his misdeeds and I don't think he comprehends Canada is not his personal kingdom.

Trudeau has exhibited passion for promises he can't keep and Mulcair has a great imagination - that his government will be able to provide Canadians with simply everything.

Not gonna say these 2 are any better than Harper but Harper isn't any better than them either.

While Harper may seem lack passion, it doesn't mean he's not passionate; while he may seem not to exhibit imagination, he sees Canada, while large in landmass but small in population, as a leading light in human rights and freedoms; in encouraging business to be inventive and resourceful and providing them with the opportunities to do what they do best throughout the world.

Bill C-51 removed many rights and freedoms including Due Process of Law and Personal Privacy. It also supports torture and rendition. It is far from being a leading light of rights and freedoms.

The government isnt a corporation....

Umm, yes it is.

 

[AnnaG]

No. It was flawed back then too. It's been flawed since party politics and the whipped vote came into being.

Actually FPTP started out flawed.

FPTP makes people vote strategically so the person they really would like to vote for doesn't get their vote, it favours the larger parties disproportionately more than the small ones, it allows for spoilers and gerrymandering, etc.

I bumped into this one time and found it interesting: I. What do we mean by fair?

Id go with the latter. Im not a fan of term limits. If people want to keep electing the same person over and over that should be their choice. Telling people they can no longer vote for some person does not seem democratic to me.

Me either.

The government isnt a corporation and has very different rules. The constitution allows for these things to happen and they have happened before. Its been a long time since the last time but it did happen and can again. All you need to form government is the confidence of the house. You can come in second and still get that if you have the support (whether its formal or informal) from another party which combined forms a majority. So what gives him the right in this hypothetical scenario? Having the confidence of the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, it is the confidence of the public that matters. Representatives in or out of the commons do not always represent the public.

The way the US does it doesnt work so well either.

True, but on the other hand, some places are better.

Thats the way the system works. You dont have to like it but it is what it is and always has been.

That's what people used to say when the world was flat and tomatoes were poisonous, too.

 

[JLM]

Thats the way the system works. You dont have to like it but it is what it is and always has been.

Makes me think of the wise person who said "Only an idiots thinks doing the same thing over and over will achieve different results"

 

[AnnaG]

Makes me think of the wise person who said "Only an idiots thinks doing the same thing over and over expects different results"

It was Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

[Cannuck]

The comment was about insanity, not idiots. People that aren't idiots, know that.

 

[DaSleeper]

Actually FPTP started out flawed.

FPTP makes people vote strategically so the person they really would like to vote for doesn't get their vote, it favours the larger parties disproportionately more than the small ones, it allows for spoilers and gerrymandering, etc.

I bumped into this one time and found it interesting: I. What do we mean by fair?

Me either.

Unfortunately, it is the confidence of the public that matters. Representatives in or out of the commons do not always represent the public.

True, but on the other hand, some places are better.

That's what people used to say when the world was flat and tomatoes were poisonous, too.

This strategic voting or fptp usually comes out when leftoids are scared of loosing......then is completely forgotten if they win until the next time that it doesn't look good for them...

 

[JLM]

It was Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Cannucklehead disagrees- guess he's smarter than Einstein! (In his mind)

 

[DaSleeper]

Cannucklehead disagrees- guess he's smarter than Einstein! (In his mind)

Cannucklehead just like to dance!

 

[Cannuck]

Cannucklehead disagrees- guess he's smarter than Einstein! (In his mind)

You just get sillier by the day. I agree with Einstein. I also think you're insane, an idiot and remarkably silly.

Cannucklehead just like to dance!

You'll get over your saltiness.

 

[PoliticalNick]

You just get sillier by the day. I agree with Einstein. I also think you're insane, an idiot and remarkably silly.



You'll get over your saltiness.

Most of this country is insane by definition. They keep voting for the same 3 parties expecting something will change.

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[taxslave]

You just copy and pasted that off their brochure, didn't you. Although I disagree with coldsream on many issues, his assessment of Harper is bang on. Maybe you should look at him without the rose coloured glasses.

I doubt if coldstream looks good with any color glasses.

 

[Cannuck]

Most of this country is insane by definition. They keep voting for the same 3 parties expecting something will change.

The parties keep changing though. The Liberals under Trudeau are not the same party as the Liberals under Martin. Likewise, the Conservatives under Clark were not the same as the Harperites.

 

[JLM]

Cannucklehead just like to dance!

Glad to hear he has one capability. Granted, it is one that doesn't take much of a brain!

 

[Corduroy]

I meant "popular" in terms of what the people want? Not popular as in personality! Savvy?

No, other than simply stating it you haven't actually explained why strategic voting is wrong.

 

[JLM]

No, other than simply stating it you haven't actually explained why strategic voting is wrong.

I would think a fairly clever person like yourself would have figured it out by now. Apparently the reason why a lot of people are doing this is to get rid of Mr. Harper. To me going by what I hear, Mr. Harper is objectionable to about 75% of the population or at least 75% of those who are stating an opinion. So that being the case if people vote for who they want Mr. Harper will be gone. So that tells me one of two things.............1. they are not all being truthful about their opinion of Mr. Harper or 2. they are voting "strategically" for other reasons than getting rid of Harper. Now there is one more problem, to vote strategically you have to know who is voting how and where. How do they know who is voting how and where? THEY DON'T. At best they know SOME of what people questioned have told the pollsters. You got it now, Cord?

 

[mentalfloss]

People vote strategically to get rid of the incumbent government.

It's really that simple and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Curious Cdn]

People vote strategically to get rid of the incumbent government.

It's really that simple and there's nothing wrong with that.

THAT is the essence of our democracy. We have the power to throw the bums out when they become spent and arrogant.

 

[DaSleeper]

THAT is the essence of our democracy. We have the power to throw the bums out when they become spent and arrogant.

Trou d'eau is already arrogant and not even in yet.....