|
Federal Election Looms: Who would you vote for? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mute79 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
uh, no.
while I accept a coalition as a perfectly legitimate, legal option (and it's commonplace in many countries)...it's not a good idea. no one voted for a coalition and CERTAINLY not one that would have been lead by Dion, who badly lost an election and widespread support in his own party.
few people want to see the ludicrous (and expensive) concessions that would need to be made to keep a coalition intact...many of which would also not serve the interests of the people.
as much as I can't stand Harper, that's not the way to get him out of office. the way is to point out what a hypocrite he's been and how he's failed miserably to implement his platform. he feels the only way he can govern is with a majority and can't accept the FACT that Canadians do not want him to have one. |
you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests |
You dont think that shady backroom deals wouldnt be made? I think it would be even more chaos than a minority government. Look at Italy and their model. They have annual and bi annual elections as a rule. And most of the time there is nothing but screaming and yelling and even the odd fist fight in parliament. No thanks!!! |
|
|
| mute79 |
| yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy! |
I did not equate us to them. And thats why i want to avoid coalitions. So we DONT become that.
One has to ask how some of these societies become corrupt in the first place. What systems allowed them to become that way in the first place?
Dont you think runoffs would be a better option? |
|
|
| mute79 |
the last thing i would want to see is the runoff election system.. democratic societies need to move as far away from the two-party model of the USA as possible! runoff election system would move us dangerously close to it, and would result in serving the establishment, not the people
coalition system is the only way to grow the democratic system, since it would encourage people to start up new parties with fresh ideas.. with coalitions, these interests are served, not abandoned, as you claim |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
yes, equate canada to one of the most corrupt societies in the world.. classy! |
Canada? No.
The Liberal party? Absolutely.
What, have you already forgotten everything that went down during the 12 years before Harper took the helm? Makes the Italian parliament look like bingo night.
And it's really incredibly foolish to say that societies need to move away from the two-party system, when the two-party system is the only system in which you don't get bloc voting/tactical voting. I think Canada does alright with our 2 major and 2 minor parties, but what you're advocating is practically anarchy. With no allegiances and no unified platform, there's nothing to stop anyone from trading votes for political favours.
Pure democracy is one of the worst ways to run a government (or a business or anything else). That's why every "democratic" system today is actually a system of democratic elections combined with a constitutional process. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
kanye west !!!!!
cause WHITEY KEEPS ME DOWN TOO !!! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
the last thing i would want to see is the runoff election system.. democratic societies need to move as far away from the two-party model of the USA as possible! runoff election system would move us dangerously close to it, and would result in serving the establishment, not the people
coalition system is the only way to grow the democratic system, since it would encourage people to start up new parties with fresh ideas.. with coalitions, these interests are served, not abandoned, as you claim |
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! |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
you're wrong, since you don't account for the fact that within the coalition you still have the tug of war between the various parties, that wouldn't let ridiculous policies through.. how is it fair to allow the ruling party to be that for which only 1/3 of the country voted for? it's irresponsible on part of politicians, since they do not serve the will of the people, but their own self-serving interests |
that's your opinion. I'm not "wrong".
I didn't say that "ridiculous policies" would make it through. I said that there would be expensive concessions needed to secure the support of the other parties.
the Bloq and the NDP both know damn well they will never form the gov't on their own so they will make demands that will either be granted or they threaten to yank their support, the coalition falls, and they're no worse off then they are now. otherwise, WTF is the point of participating in the coalition if they don't get to implement part of their own agenda? Why the hell do you think that so many Liberal supporters did NOT support the coalition, even though the Liberals would lead it?
do you actually think there would be some utopia of noble cooperation that set aside partisan interests for the good of all Canadians?
hahahahahaha...ok.
certain types of coalitions (namely one with a large party supported by ONE smaller party) are great in theory and do work well enough elsewhere...but I really can't see that working well here at all when the three parties would be the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. There are too many idealogical differences and disparate agendas for that to be functional, stable and GOOD for Canada. |
|
|
| patpicos |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Bloc Pot of course. |
:p |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
You can officially ask to "Decline your ballot" which goes on record basically as "none of the above"
Spoiling your ballot goes into the spoiled ballot bag and basically says "Im a retard who cant follow instructions" and sends no political message at all.
I used to work as a DRO and SDRO for polling stations :) |
and that is exactly what I did...I declined to vote. I agree that spoiling a vote does nothing....declining to vote tells the parties they all suck :D |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
and that is exactly what I did...I declined to vote. I agree that spoiling a vote does nothing....declining to vote tells the parties they all suck :D |
Good! Im glad some of those who dont want to vote for anyone actually take the time to make that political statement. It's just as much a service to the country as voting for someone. Staying home achieves nothing. |
|
|
|
|
