 |
|
|
|
 |
mute79
..:culture vulture:..
Registered: Feb 2001
Location: in transit
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
You dont think a run off election would serve us well? Its not a 2 party system due to the fact that there had already been an opportunity to elect ANY party that chooses to run in the first election.
So on one hand you bemoan that a third of the votes gets to rule and then say that 50% + 1 doesnt work because its American?
Coalitions would result in nothing but back room peddling and political fighting and NOTHING would get done. Talking about serving the establishment! |
run off elections are detrimental to the democratic process, since citizens are being hoarded into camps by the system, instead of representing their political interests.. your responses are overly emotionally charged to consider these issues pragmatically. it is impossible for a two-party system to represent interests of the masses
look at yourself, you said once that you were a fiscal conservative but a social liberal (or something along those lines). there is no party atm that represents these values, and here is an opportunity for you to start your own.. with a multi-party system you would be able to support the coalition and ensure that your core party values are implemented..
coalition governments need to become the norm, not the exception
|
|
Sep-15-2009 21:39
|
|
|
 |
 |
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
do you actually think there would be some utopia of noble cooperation that set aside partisan interests for the good of all Canadians? |
In fact, the original Harper CPC minority government operated for a time under a loose coalition with the BQ, since the Liberals were being obstructionists on every count, and the NDP didn't have enough seats to make a difference (not that they would ever agree with the Conservatives anyway).
This coalition sort of worked because the BQ are sort of conservative in spite of the incredibly divisive separatist issue. I remember thinking how truly bizarre a coalition it was at the time, but they voted together on a lot of issues.
Even that coalition didn't exactly turn out great in the long term. It helped in the short term to solve a temporary problem, that being the vacuum of leadership in the Liberal party at the time. Ironically, what Mute proposes is effectively that vacuum, the way the Liberal party was in 2006, aimless, leaderless, fragmented, but applying to the entire government and not just the opposition. Such an entity is incapable of governing effectively because every issue has to be debated to death and watered down to oblivion.
Coalitions of 3 or more divergent philosophies represent the extreme bureaucratic side of democracy. "Fairness" to the point of never accomplishing anything even remotely controversial.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
|
Sep-15-2009 23:14
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:16.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|