1  2  Next

The likelihood is that this parliament will last longer than the previous one, so all in all we could end up with 4 or 5 years of minority govt. With the regional and urban/rural split in the country there's no guarantee we'll have another majority for a while, bearing that in mind maybe electoral reforms time has come. Surely if we're going to have minority/coalition governments we should have ones that reflect the popular vote

   

We could start by having a law that states all parties must have candidates in all provinces..

   

why you just got rid of the only slacker in Alberta

   

I didn't word that right..sorry

I mean have candidates the run in all provinces..In plain english bye bye bloc.

   

I don't think that would work.....you'd just get a bunch of Ind. from Quebec who all vote alike.

   

That'd be against the principals of democracy. It won't work.

I wouldn't try to ban the Bloc, you'll end up putting more gas in the fire.

   

Ban the Bloc??
How about expand the Bloc?
If you are truely a federal party (which I doubt) then why not represent all off Canada?
Or do you believe western french are second class??

   

That won't go over well with Queerbecors.

   

So?

   

What part of "Bloc Québécois" that you do not understand? It means "Quebecker Bloc", to point out to the people of Quebec only. It's not saying "Bloc des Francophones du Canada" (French-speakers Bloc of Canada) or "Bloc Canadien français" or bababa anything pointing out for the French-speaking Canadians only. The Bloc is there to represent the Quebeckers, no one else...not even the francophones or anyone else outside Quebec. They will never claim to speak for anyone in Canada but those within Quebec. The Bloc represents 51 ridings that have more than just francophones, but also allophones, anglophones, natives, and others...and they're all Quebeckers as well.

Erm, it is truely a federal party, it has MPs in the House. You meant by national party (duh)? A political party has the right to choose to place a candidate wherever it wants, even if it's not one for every riding in the country.

And you'll just put more gas in the separatism fire since the soft-nationalist swing voters that account 25-30% of the voting population will not tolerate this. You'll just give the separatists a good reason why the Canadian federalism will not meet Quebec's needs.

   

must have candidates in all provinces is that it makes it nearly impossible to form a new party. I would thing this unfair, if not unconstitutional. I think maybe three provinces by their second election, five provinces by their third and all provinces by their fourth would be more realistic. With the rapidity with which we may be having elections for a while even that would be a strain.

   

Where does it say its unconstitutional? No where. And it will never be unconstitutional, no matter what the house can come up with.

Its perfectly legal, but try to change it, in your liberal arrogant selfish ways and you will see what will happen.

   

Uh.......Numure......That guy's actually on your side by the way. I think you mis-interpreted his post. Il dit que ça serait non-constitutionel qu'un parti soit obligé de mettre des candidats dans tout le pays...Car il serait difficile de créer des nouveaux partis....

   

he went off half cocked too, which is why I didn't reply to him.

   

I'd love to see RP, but I can't see Harper being a big fan of it. If we had RP on Monday, the Cons wouldn't have swept AB. They would have gotten 19-20 seats out of 28. The Green Party alone got 6% in Edmonton. Why would he be interested in weakening his base?

I see the only way it happens is if the Libs or the other parties decide it's in their interest (which in the Prairies it would be) and force Harper to accept reform as a precondition for passing his budget or something else near and dear to his heart.

   

1  2  Next