I wonder whether similar thoughts were expressed when we had a liberal majority and Reform/PC were splitting those votes, an interesting hypothetical.<br /> <br /> That we should have more totalitarian dictators is a frequent reply of those who think those dictators share their views of the world. For my part, the LESS power a single person has, the better for democracy.<br /> <br /> There are a lot of issues here, but simply the adoption of proportional representation-or enforcing set election dates, gets rid of the 'forcing an election' problem. FORCING a government to work with a minority would be far better.<br /> <br /> Of course as everyone knows, the only 'Fuck off' that goes around Ottawa comes from ALL politicians and it goes to canadians. <br /> <br /> We already know that the liberals are far more fiscally conservative than even the conservatives were, so I don't agree that somehow 'conservatives' are this monolithic force that people think. My vote WOULD go to conservatives if they hadn't joined the reform alliance, and if they had a hope in hell. And of course every riding is different, nobody in this riding attacks the NDP-he has no hope. The parties may as well attack the Natural Law Party.<br /> <br /> So again, the best reply is simply to tell people to go to "howdtheyvote.ca" where you can plainly see that the 'divide' between conservatives and liberals isn't nearly what either liberals or conservatives would like to think it is.

   

Well, Rabblewatch, I can’t agree with you on this one, I one again finding myself agreeing in part with Marcarc. I agree that a majority government will get *more done* but question whether that is necessarily a good thing. Most of the actions in the house are about change, new laws, new rules, new ways of doing things. Is constant change necessarily a good thing, is it not desirable for those changes to be good for a majority of our citizens? Massive changes in the way of doing things rammed thru by one majority party only to be changed by the next one elected creates more problems than it solves. A minority government does not stop these changes but slows them down and ensures that a majority of MPs from more than one party must agree that this is a good change, this to my mind is how a democracy should work. This is not to say that it could not work with a majority, the problem being that our MPs (with a few notable exceptions) are indoctrinated to vote along party lines even if they personally think the new proposal stinks. There is little room for dissent within a party and the only way we can ensure that the few in cabinet are not running the country as a dictatorship is to make it necessary for a majority of MPs from all party’s agree with the proposal before it passes. It is time for our MPs to stop behaving like a bunch of spoiled children in the house and approach the task that they have been entrusted with in a cooperative and non confrontational manner. <br /> The problem is of course, if you agree with what the majority government in power is doing then you may view majority governments as ok, but if you disagree then you have little or no means of changing it until the next election at which time around and around we go again. There are a number of countries where minority *coalition* governments have operated over long periods of time in a pretty stable way, they have learned to cooperate and work together because the alternative is once again constant change this time due to the type of thing that we saw prior to this election. It is not the minority government that is bad but the manner in which our representatives work within it.<br />

   

THe above is quite correct, however, I don't think it really 'slows down change'. I think it MAY, once Canada actually knew how to govern with coalition governments. What it does do is change the 'focus' of government, rather than the speed. If you look you'll see that just as much legislation is passed during a minority government, however, they tend to stear clear of certain 'types' of issues.<br /> <br /> In the last minority government you saw lots of things increasing the size of government and further empowering the government at the people's expense, such as the creation of three new bureaucracis, incorporating telefilm, etc. These were BOTH endorsed by the two main parties, and in some cases endorsed by the three main parties in cases which dealt with Quebec-again just further infuriating those who want to get the feds OUT of Quebec and the have not provinces who would LOVE to get that kind of federal investment.<br /> <br /> However, the 'radical' changes are off the table, and like the above I think that's a good thing. Issues are not defined by the parties that endorse them-a good idea is a good idea that should be debated on its merits, not on where it comes from. As said elsewhere-good government is not party government.

   

[QUOTE BY= Rural] I agree that a majority government will get *more done* but question whether that is necessarily a good thing. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> that naturally depends on if it's the party you voted for gets elected or not. <br /> <br /> If the NDP were to win Majority, I bet a lot of people here would be claiming that 'some good' can be done. If the Conservatives win, this forum would be filled with 'The Nazi party got elected'<br /> <br /> Problem is, people are treating politics like football teams. It's ridiculous.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Rural] Most of the actions in the house are about change, new laws, new rules, new ways of doing things. Is constant change necessarily a good thing, is it not desirable for those changes to be good for a majority of our citizens? [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Government at it's best is a government that can quickly adapt to the changing needs of the public.<br /> <br /> So yes, change is very important. Look how fast the computer industry changes, it's nuts. Technology is evolving faster than we can maintain it.<br /> <br /> I remember onetime watching a t.v. show where an MP was suggesting the purchase of a centralized data storage in which Optical discs were to be used (this was at a time when the average hard-drive was too costly).<br /> <br /> Back then, it looked like a good idea. Today? It's ridiculous. Nobody uses optical discs (I'm not talking DVD-R's either).<br /> <br /> The key here, is for the market to determine what formats/standards are to be used, and for politicians to get out of the way over what becomes standard.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Rural] Massive changes in the way of doing things rammed thru by one majority party only to be changed by the next one elected creates more problems than it solves. A minority government does not stop these changes but slows them down and ensures that a majority of MPs from more than one party must agree that this is a good change, this to my mind is how a democracy should work. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Gridlock'd government with a gazillion compromises. So basically to push through legislation to help a homeless shelter...politicians first will have to lighten up restrictions on environmental laws.<br /> <br /> That's basically what you want. That's how minority governments work, where for everyone one good idea, there oftentimes have to be several bad ideas attached to it.<br /> <br /> Majority governments can push through legislation without these ridiculous deals.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Rural]There is little room for dissent within a party and the only way we can ensure that the few in cabinet are not running the country as a dictatorship is to make it necessary for a majority of MPs from all party’s agree with the proposal before it passes. It is time for our MPs to stop behaving like a bunch of spoiled children in the house and approach the task that they have been entrusted with in a cooperative and non confrontational manner. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Two things<br /> <br /> 1) You have no comprehension over what a real dictatorship is.<br /> Canada is Disneyland compared to North Korea. Make no bones about it.<br /> <br /> 2) MP's act like assholes because it gets them headlines. They don't have the backing of a majority government, so they have to grandstand to try and get whatever public/media clout.<br /> <br /> Like I said, the more minority a government is, the more they'll have to play to the cameras like some stupid Reality-TV show to 'win the public'<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Rural]The problem is of course, if you agree with what the majority government in power is doing then you may view majority governments as ok, but if you disagree then you have little or no means of changing it until the next election at which time around and around we go again. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It's not that black and white. Life never is.<br /> <br /> I frankly am not that stoked over what the Conservative Party's platform is, but I'll be voting for them nonetheless.<br /> <br /> The fact that people are citing 'gay marriage' as a 'deal breaker' is stupid. Gay marriage easily ranks at the BOTTOM of priorities in this country. Healthcare/Crime/National Standing (Canada has a LOT of amends to make with the U.S.). Those are all vastly more important than the SMOKESCREEN GAY MARRIAGE.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Rural]There are a number of countries where minority *coalition* governments have operated over long periods of time in a pretty stable way,[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Links/facts please.<br />

   

Virtually EVERY country has had representational government for a long period of time-most of them stable. I don't agree about the grandstanding, politicians act like idiots no matter what. Most politicians dont even represent most of their constituents, which also explains the grandstanding. But how many people really pay attention to them anyway?<br /> <br /> 'Making deals' is another way of saying 'democracy'. Not everybody has the same view, which is why debate on such matters is held. Under a dictatorship only one opinion matters. Want GMO's to be labelled on food? Too bad. Want proportional representation in your province? Too bad. The list goes on.<br /> <br /> If everyone felt the same way about everything we wouldn't need government at all. If five people are in a room and deciding what to do, it's crazy to think that they'll say "Ok, let's vote for either Bob or Frank and then they'll decide everything for us". Nobody would dream of setting up a system like that-unless you are Bob or Frank, which is essentially the history of Canada.<br /> <br /> Majority governments in Canada have never even represented the majority of citizens, so there's no point in pretending that's democracy. Even if it did, take a look at what your federal representatives actually DO- 22 decisions in the entirety of last year. All the rest of the decisions are made by bureaucrats and unelected civil servants. Ask any person with experience in Canada, meaning over 50, and they'll tell you: "the bureaucrats run Canada". Elected officials just give vague assentions sometimes. As said, go to 'howdtheyvote.ca'. Of those 22 decisions three were on renaming voting ridings! Tough call that.

   

I don't get it.<br /> <br /> People here are bitching that Majority governments have 'too much power' over the people and that they are always screwing Joe Public.<br /> <br /> And yet, these same people keep VOTING for bigger government. Liberal/NDP are all for that!<br /> <br /> The idea of Republicanism is just that...to download responsibility and POWER more towards the Provincial/Municipal areas, where the people can have a stronger say as to what goes on directly in their riding.<br /> <br /> Federalism is stupid. As if someone in Ottawa is going to listen to someone in B.C.<br /> <br /> All what the Feds should be doing is helping strengthen ties with the U.S. maintaining the military and helping Provinces/Municipalities whenever *they* ask for help.<br /> <br /> That's what Conservatism is about, giving power TO THE POWER, instead of TAKING POWER AWAY and shipping it off to Ottawa.<br /> <br /> Now, think about this: DO YOU SERIOUSLY GIVE A SHIT WHAT IS GOING ON ELSEWHERE IN CANADA MORE THAN WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN LIFE???<br /> <br /> As the saying goes: "Charity starts at home". Take care of your own life and those around you, and let others elsewhere take care of their own lives as they see fit.<br /> <br /> If they want to worship Satan and smoke weed all day and live off of Kraft Dinner: I AM HAPPY FOR THEM.<br /> <br /> If I want to get myself a good job, take care of myself and marry some 20 year old Hoochie-Mama Babe to have a family with, that should be my own decision!<br /> <br /> Y'know, being in my 30's...there's a lot to be said in getting a 20 year old piece of ass to sit on your face (I have and I could quickly tell the difference...younger women simply don't have the mileage or the BAGGAGE that a woman in her 30's does). I feel sorry for all the women in their 30's who are unmarried and turning into wrinkled spinsters. I just don't give them the time of day.<br /> <br /> Why should I?<br /> <br /> C'mon, what guy here wouldn't want to have a 20 year old broad sit on his face?<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Virtually EVERY country has had representational government for a long period of time-most of them stable. I don't agree about the grandstanding, politicians act like idiots no matter what. Most politicians dont even represent most of their constituents, which also explains the grandstanding. But how many people really pay attention to them anyway?<br /> <br /> 'Making deals' is another way of saying 'democracy'. Not everybody has the same view, which is why debate on such matters is held. Under a dictatorship only one opinion matters. Want GMO's to be labelled on food? Too bad. Want proportional representation in your province? Too bad. The list goes on.<br /> <br /> If everyone felt the same way about everything we wouldn't need government at all. If five people are in a room and deciding what to do, it's crazy to think that they'll say "Ok, let's vote for either Bob or Frank and then they'll decide everything for us". Nobody would dream of setting up a system like that-unless you are Bob or Frank, which is essentially the history of Canada.<br /> <br /> Majority governments in Canada have never even represented the majority of citizens, so there's no point in pretending that's democracy. Even if it did, take a look at what your federal representatives actually DO- 22 decisions in the entirety of last year. All the rest of the decisions are made by bureaucrats and unelected civil servants. Ask any person with experience in Canada, meaning over 50, and they'll tell you: "the bureaucrats run Canada". Elected officials just give vague assentions sometimes. As said, go to 'howdtheyvote.ca'. Of those 22 decisions three were on renaming voting ridings! Tough call that.[/QUOTE]

   

Skipping over the nonsense, the central point here is that IF 'republicanism' or 'conservatism' REALLY was about decentralizing government, which has merits in tons of cases (though I wouldn't say all) then more people would probably be all for it. It is quite true that Ottawa seems very disinterested in the needs or wants of regions-even regions in Ontario.<br /> <br /> The problem is that it has been PROVEN that republican governments or conservative ones have absolutely no interest in doing any of those. Conservative governments and republican ones typically grow faster than liberal ones. There is a reason that in the states the locals are always against 'the feds'. There is a reason why every State Legislature south of North Carolina was purposely built to face away from Washington. The US is the most overgoverned country in the world, there are more law enforcement agencies in that country than there are federal agencies in this one.<br /> <br /> A big issue with states is the department of homeland security, which is yet another federal agency designed to override state independance. The patriot act is the same, and of course americans know this, but you certainly aren't going to hear about it in the media. The republicans have overridden practically every state jurisdiction that there is. <br /> <br /> Of course claiming anything about canadian voters makes no sense, every voter is different and there is no 'typical voter' except in the mind of the person who feels like bashing them.<br /> <br /> As I've said, just go look at the legislation. Three entirely new bureaucracies were created during the past minority government. These were all heartily endorsed by both the conservatives and liberals, and in one case NDP. Two of these new bureaucracies were voted AGAINST by the NDP. So the idea that conservatives are somehow against big government is completely baseless. People can tell themselves that, but just go look at WHAT THEY DO, not what the pundits say. <br /> <br /> If that were really their interest, they would have voted against them, and in a minority government that means the legislation would have been defeated. But thanks to liberal-conservative collusion, we now have three nice new bureaucracies where the government can stash an unlimited amount of ill gotten cash. And anybody that thinks that will change under a conservative government, simply hasn't been watching what the party actually does, they've been listening to the talking points released each morning to con them into giving them their vote.<br /> <br />

   

To add further to Marcarc's response.<br /> <br /> We live in a capitalist society and it is the capitalist that rules. Liberal (in the sense that liberal means capitalist) democracy was supposed to put the breaks on capitalist rule. Like any system the most powerful develop strategies to undermine the checks and balances in the system. Both Liberal and Conservative Parties today represent the same capitalist interests and only disagree on the best means to increase the wealth of the capitalist and protect the system. <br /> <br /> Conservatives today believe that the best way to maintain the status quo is through a rigid system of law and order combined with a rigid social order enforced through a state defined set of religious and economic principles. This is what they call a "principled" party. This at one time was what liberals believed except they rejected the union of church and state. Like Marx, Conservatives believe that religion is "the opiate of the people" and an effective means to control the population. Their focus is social control.<br /> <br /> Liberals today still believe in the protection of capital and the separation of church and state. They believe that if there is some attention paid to creating opportunity then social peace can be achieved. <br /> <br /> Both parties have either purged (Conservatives) or marginalized (Liberals) progressives. A progressive tends to protect the interests of the non-capitalist class. They strive to maintain a system in which opportunities are widespread and not restricted to the current capitalist class and their social networks. It is a constant fight for progressives to create the necessary balance for a vibrant society because those who "have" jealously guard their power.<br /> <br /> Conservatives believe in big government to protect the status quo or what they call the social order: protect wealth and the entitlement of wealth. Their big government is used to build prisons, for lawyers, for witch hunts against opponents, to make sure that social inequality is strengthened, to use the military to expand the power of capital, propaganda, and to disempower the public among other things. Big government is only "big" when it is applied to helping the general public and not the capitalist system.<br /> <br /> The reason that the Conservatives are doing so well in this election is that capital has decided that Harper is willing to protect and serve their interests more than Martin. They have filtered more money into the party and are using their propaganda machine to make sure he is elected.<br /> <br /> In fact, conservatives and liberals have reversed philosophies in several significant ways.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

"Now, think about this: DO YOU SERIOUSLY GIVE A SHIT WHAT IS GOING ON ELSEWHERE IN CANADA MORE THAN WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN LIFE???"<br /> <br /> YES. because I belive that what affects Canada as a whole will affect each province and each person within it. I belive strongly in a united Canada which will only grow and prosper if we ALL care about our fellow Canadians across this vast country.<br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Rural] "Now, think about this: DO YOU SERIOUSLY GIVE A SHIT WHAT IS GOING ON ELSEWHERE IN CANADA MORE THAN WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN LIFE???"<br /> <br /> YES. because I belive that what affects Canada as a whole will affect each province and each person within it. I belive strongly in a united Canada which will only grow and prosper if we ALL care about our fellow Canadians across this vast country.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Great! So when can you drop by and WIPE MY ASS?