Canadian Federal election. 2011

[2dimes]

Something the Russians did that i thought was pretty neat, back in the 90's they used to have a "none of the above" option on their ballots. Would you be in support of such a thing?

I thought that we could go to a polling station with our credentials and announce something to the effect of "I am exercising my right not to vote because I do not support any of the parties." and that is classified/recorded in some way. Effectively it is a "none of the above" vote.

I know there was a guy who ran for some radical party a while ago in my area who said he would prefer that you do this, but if you were too shy to make that statement, just vote for him. I was too shy, so I just voted for him.

I don't know if you can make that declaration but in the past they counted spoiled ballets to track the difference between voters that wouldn't bother to vote and the ones that were just against all the candidates, thought Bono would be the best choice or what have you.

Yes I would be in support of some form of protest vote being allowed, including the "none of the above." option if that's all they can figure out. It's easier than organising a march to show people don't like the choices in their riding yet still respect the concept and or want to be allowed to vote.

[Timminz]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's been a few years since I looked this up), but isn't there a minimum percentage of the popular vote requirement for a party to receive federal funding, and doesn't the Green party qualify for this funding due to their results in the last election? If they are officially recognized enough to get funding, why the hell shouldn't they get a spot at the debate?

[Ray Rider]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's been a few years since I looked this up), but isn't there a minimum percentage of the popular vote requirement for a party to receive federal funding, and doesn't the Green party qualify for this funding due to their results in the last election? If they are officially recognized enough to get funding, why the hell shouldn't they get a spot at the debate?

Normally the debate is conducted between the different parliamentary leaders, and May's party has no Member of Parliament. Yes they do receive federal funding, which is something that should be changed (as the Conservatives tried to do). If a person seriously believes in the policies of the party he or she is voting for, then forking over $1.95 a year to support that party is extremely minimal and not too difficult to expect. There have been a number of articles written showing the benefits the cut may bring. Here's one from the first page of a Google search:

The National Post published an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on December 2-3, 2008 asking whether political parties should receive public funding. They found that 61% of those polled opposed public funding, 36% supported public funding and 3% didn’t know or refused to answer the question. So was the move to cut public funding a political move by the Conservatives motivated by a desire to financially cripple their political opponents?

Cynics, the opposition parties and the media would say ‘yes.’ For my part, I really can’t know the genuine motivation behind the legislation, but for me the much more important question, partisanship aside, focuses on whether or not eliminating party funding is a good idea or a bad idea.

As citizens and voters, whatever our political leanings, we ought to look for anything that makes our voices heard on Parliament Hill. Parties ought to represent distinct points of view reflective of the party membership. Then when an election comes the voter has a genuine choice to make by weighing the various options presented by the party platforms. Too often, the parties in an election are chasing the same public opinion polls and disconnect themselves from the membership since they realize some or all of their members’ views are unpalatable to the public as a whole. This leads to political schizophrenia since parties may have public agendas for the election and private agendas that they tell to their party members in off the record conversations. Eliminating public funding and keeping the donation maximum relatively small will force parties to be very attentive to their party base and give voters a much clearer choice at the polls. It will also reduce the amount of money all parties have to spend on an election and I think that will also be a good thing.

I think there’s another potential benefit. There are two ways a party can win votes in an election: a constructive mode and a destructive mode. In a constructive mode the party would actually make proposals that the public wants and thus gain their support. In the second mode one can so demonize the other parties that voters, without supporting your party’s platform, vote against the alternatives. The second kind of voter, who spends his political life voting against parties, will never donate to a political party because his issues and preferences are never on the table. I think the elimination of public funding for political parties will help them move away from destructive campaigning toward constructive campaigning and in my mind that would be a good thing.

Another update: Stephen Harper proposed to have a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff. I'd love to see them duke it out!

As a side not, I'm disappointed that Wikipedia seems to have the best (clear, concise, and yet comprehensive enough) information on past elections. Why doesn't our government similarly have a decent, (at least slightly) attractive, easily-navigable web page? I tried the Elections Canada page, but was ugly, took longer to load, and was just generally less streamlined...

As another side not, did you know that there was a "Work-Less" party in the last election?! There's still the Rhinoceros party running in this election. The main plank of their platform is to not fulfill any promises if elected!

[keiths31]

Another update: Stephen Harper proposed to have a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff. I'd love to see them duke it out!

I too would look forward to that.

[Baron Von PWN]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's been a few years since I looked this up), but isn't there a minimum percentage of the popular vote requirement for a party to receive federal funding, and doesn't the Green party qualify for this funding due to their results in the last election? If they are officially recognized enough to get funding, why the hell shouldn't they get a spot at the debate?

Normally the debate is conducted between the different parliamentary leaders, and May's party has no Member of Parliament. Yes they do receive federal funding, which is something that should be changed (as the Conservatives tried to do). If a person seriously believes in the policies of the party he or she is voting for, then forking over $1.95 a year to support that party is extremely minimal and not too difficult to expect. There have been a number of articles written showing the benefits the cut may bring. Here's one from the first page of a Google search:

The National Post published an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on December 2-3, 2008 asking whether political parties should receive public funding. They found that 61% of those polled opposed public funding, 36% supported public funding and 3% didn’t know or refused to answer the question. So was the move to cut public funding a political move by the Conservatives motivated by a desire to financially cripple their political opponents?

Cynics, the opposition parties and the media would say ‘yes.’ For my part, I really can’t know the genuine motivation behind the legislation, but for me the much more important question, partisanship aside, focuses on whether or not eliminating party funding is a good idea or a bad idea.

As citizens and voters, whatever our political leanings, we ought to look for anything that makes our voices heard on Parliament Hill. Parties ought to represent distinct points of view reflective of the party membership. Then when an election comes the voter has a genuine choice to make by weighing the various options presented by the party platforms. Too often, the parties in an election are chasing the same public opinion polls and disconnect themselves from the membership since they realize some or all of their members’ views are unpalatable to the public as a whole. This leads to political schizophrenia since parties may have public agendas for the election and private agendas that they tell to their party members in off the record conversations. Eliminating public funding and keeping the donation maximum relatively small will force parties to be very attentive to their party base and give voters a much clearer choice at the polls. It will also reduce the amount of money all parties have to spend on an election and I think that will also be a good thing.

I think there’s another potential benefit. There are two ways a party can win votes in an election: a constructive mode and a destructive mode. In a constructive mode the party would actually make proposals that the public wants and thus gain their support. In the second mode one can so demonize the other parties that voters, without supporting your party’s platform, vote against the alternatives. The second kind of voter, who spends his political life voting against parties, will never donate to a political party because his issues and preferences are never on the table. I think the elimination of public funding for political parties will help them move away from destructive campaigning toward constructive campaigning and in my mind that would be a good thing.

Another update: Stephen Harper proposed to have a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff. I'd love to see them duke it out!

As a side not, I'm disappointed that Wikipedia seems to have the best (clear, concise, and yet comprehensive enough) information on past elections. Why doesn't our government similarly have a decent, (at least slightly) attractive, easily-navigable web page? I tried the Elections Canada page, but was ugly, took longer to load, and was just generally less streamlined...

As another side not, did you know that there was a "Work-Less" party in the last election?! There's still the Rhinoceros party running in this election. The main plank of their platform is to not fulfill any promises if elected!

I'd like to see that as well., though the traditional one with all the leaders should be done as well.

That's an interesting argument proposed by the post. However we also need to consider that maybe some voters don't have the disposable income to be giving campaign donations.Its nice for the conservatives that their base comes from a province awash in oil money(and oil) and they have allot of people who can make small donations. also the total cost of the political funding is less than 30 million dollars, which makes sense since if even every single Canadian voted it would be capped around 60 million, I suspect the federal government spends more on stationary in a year. For something that ensures a wide range of political voices are represented its pretty small cost to pay. If they killed the subsidy it would likely severely cripple most of the political parties for a few years at least, for such an event to occure over a financial technicality is surely not good for democracy. It reminds me far to much of the procedural and legal tricks Putin pulled in Russia.

[Ray Rider]

That's an interesting argument proposed by the post. However we also need to consider that maybe some voters don't have the disposable income to be giving campaign donations.Its nice for the conservatives that their base comes from a province awash in oil money(and oil) and they have allot of people who can make small donations. also the total cost of the political funding is less than 30 million dollars, which makes sense since if even every single Canadian voted it would be capped around 60 million, I suspect the federal government spends more on stationary in a year. For something that ensures a wide range of political voices are represented its pretty small cost to pay. If they killed the subsidy it would likely severely cripple most of the political parties for a few years at least, for such an event to occure over a financial technicality is surely not good for democracy. It reminds me far to much of the procedural and legal tricks Putin pulled in Russia.

Who wouldn't have the disposable income to give a toonie to the party of their choosing? The only possible ones are the homeless, and they often don't have the necessary ID to vote, never mind their disinterest in politics altogether (I help out at an inner-city soup kitchen and chat with homeless people quite often). A few others who might give a five dollar bill would balance them out anyway. And how would it stifle the range of political voices? This pay-out system has only been around for about seven years and all the main parties were still around previous to that, plus new ones were able to start up. Yes the parties' budgets would shrink for a time (the Conservatives would lose the most, but as a percentage of the whole they would lose the least), but as the writer pointed out, that would probably be a good thing (I'd be happy if the parties couldn't afford to run attack ads, or if there were less picket signs all over the place!); and in the long run, those parties would become much more responsive to their grassroots supporters. The possible benefits greatly outweigh the possible negative effects.

PS. The comparison to Russia is completely groundless unless you have facts and reasoning to support it.

[TheProwler]

As another side not, did you know that there was a "Work-Less" party in the last election?! There's still the Rhinoceros party running in this election. The main plank of their platform is to not fulfill any promises if elected!

I'd support the idea of "working less". The 40 hour work week seems to be a thing of the past. Most people I know work 50-60 hours a week. Given that technology has made us more efficient workers, shouldn't we actually be working shorter work weeks?

Off the top of my head, here's one issue I wish the government would focus on...

Somehow discourage people from commuting long distances to work. Does anyone here drive the 401 between Guelph Line and Toronto to get to work? Thousands and thousands of people driving mostly alone 1-3 hours to and from work every day. A lot of them in gas-guzzling SUVs. How much money is *wasted* everyday just on gasoline? The government should give companies more incentive to open offices closer to where people actually live. A lot of people would gladly take a cut in salary to be able to work closer to home. They would end up netting the same amount of money, and get the advantages of leaving home later and getting home earlier every day. I think the companies would benefit by having happier and less burnt out and therefore more effective and efficient employees. The jobs in the GTA could be filled by the people living in the GTA and the salaries there could remain higher because their cost of living is higher. Our dependency on gasoline would lessen. The number of accidents would lessen. The necessary highway traffic (for example, transport trucks) would become more streamlined and more efficient. How much time and money is spent on transport trucks being caught in the daily traffic jams on our highways?

Why is telecommuting so underutilized? With VoIP, conference calls are almost free. Internet bandwidth is cheap during working hours because there is a lot of it. Setup VPNs and let people work from home. How much money could be saved just by reducing corporate office space?

The government should act now. The ways things are going, it is all going to be forced on us as gasoline prices skyrocket. People will not be able to afford to drive to work. Why are we being more proactive?


Another topic is implementing a more efficient method of holding referendums. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. It seems to me that with the technology we have (the wide spread access to the Internet), it would be quite feasible. And wouldn't that give the voting public a better voice on important issues? The way it is now, we have a vote on who gets the power...and then our voice is muted. Sure, we can send e-mails and letters and make phone calls to our MP...but the MP will normally still only support the stance/opinion of their political party. If your entire goal is just to feel a little better about yourself in being able to say "At least I tried to make a difference." then the current system is fine. But wouldn't you rather actually make a difference by having your vote count?

So many politicians start out with good intentions and hopes of making a real difference. But then they get sucked into the system as it is and they start to enjoy the luxury of the position they hold and status quo is great. They make a lot of money, get a lot of perks, and are able to help the people/corporations that will in turn help them retain their position of power. And their aspirations of making positive changes become an afterthought. Power corrupts, etc. It's only human nature.

I think the system needs radical changes. If everyone only has one vote, that vote is less likely to be corrupt. So lets give people the power to submit their one vote on each of a variety of issues. As it is now, we put in a single vote for a party or an MP and then we hand the power over to them. And they will follow their nature and they will become corrupted. We're all shocked and appalled at the deception that exists within the government. We shouldn't be. It is human nature. The person you think is a great crusader for good will eventually become one of those people who disappoint you if they are ever successful in gaining the power you want them to have. The only way to avoid this is to take away some of the power of the leaders and spread it among the people.

[Baron Von PWN]

That's an interesting argument proposed by the post. However we also need to consider that maybe some voters don't have the disposable income to be giving campaign donations.Its nice for the conservatives that their base comes from a province awash in oil money(and oil) and they have allot of people who can make small donations. also the total cost of the political funding is less than 30 million dollars, which makes sense since if even every single Canadian voted it would be capped around 60 million, I suspect the federal government spends more on stationary in a year. For something that ensures a wide range of political voices are represented its pretty small cost to pay. If they killed the subsidy it would likely severely cripple most of the political parties for a few years at least, for such an event to occure over a financial technicality is surely not good for democracy. It reminds me far to much of the procedural and legal tricks Putin pulled in Russia.

Who wouldn't have the disposable income to give a toonie to the party of their choosing? The only possible ones are the homeless, and they often don't have the necessary ID to vote, never mind their disinterest in politics altogether (I help out at an inner-city soup kitchen and chat with homeless people quite often). A few others who might give a five dollar bill would balance them out anyway. And how would it stifle the range of political voices? This pay-out system has only been around for about seven years and all the main parties were still around previous to that, plus new ones were able to start up. Yes the parties' budgets would shrink for a time (the Conservatives would lose the most, but as a percentage of the whole they would lose the least), but as the writer pointed out, that would probably be a good thing (I'd be happy if the parties couldn't afford to run attack ads, or if there were less picket signs all over the place!); and in the long run, those parties would become much more responsive to their grassroots supporters. The possible benefits greatly outweigh the possible negative effects.

PS. The comparison to Russia is completely groundless unless you have facts and reasoning to support it.

For that to be the case we would have to reduce the minimum donation much further than it currently is. At the moment the minimum you can donate is a little over 4 grand (assuming you donate at all levels of thee political process, the minimum to one level is 1 grand), politicians themselves may donate 6 grand (sauce;http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalelections/a/contributions.htm). However donations of 20$ or less don't have to be disclosed, I worked at a conservative convention once(anecdotal i know) and between speakers they would pass around hats/buckets for donations, some people were putting 20$ every single time. Doesn't have to be recorded but they just made a donation of about 100$ 10% the annual maximum. Regardless it doesn't take much imagination to see how such rules can be bent. Will this prevent large groups like unions and corporations from making huge donations? yeah probably, baring some massive fraud. It won't stop allot of people with disposable incomes significantly breaking the limit they can donate. Woah big deal I can afford to give the greens 5- 10$ once, this guy just gave 20$ like 15 times to the conservatives. So yeah disposable income is a big deal.

Having parties receive 2$ for every vote helps to even the field a little bit, and it does help small parties all you need to be eligible is 2% of the national vote or 5% of a particular riding's vote. It's also a very equitable way of funding political parties, 1 vote 2$. Also its in addition to whatever pocket change people might donate. Here is a subsidy that helps the big parties, allot, and isn't nearly as equitable, funny the conservatives didn't want to scrap this one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... 294/page2/.

The reason I made the comparison to Russia, is this is a seemingly minor procedural change that will have serious effects to the ability of opposition parties to perform. Why doese this remind me of Russia? because the current situation in Russian politics was achieved through a variety of changes which benefited Putin. First they eliminated the FPT districts, this wiped out all of the independents(which at the time made up about 20-30% of the Russian parliament), then they raised the minimum % of the vote to be eligible for getting a seat in parliament from 5% to 7% this just so happened to be enough to wipe out all but the communist and Putin's party. Is eliminating the Per vote subsidy the same thing? no not at all, but it is reminiscent of that kind of thing. That is an utterly self serving alteration to the political rules.

[Ray Rider]

For that to be the case we would have to reduce the minimum donation much further than it currently is. At the moment the minimum you can donate is a little over 4 grand (assuming you donate at all levels of thee political process, the minimum to one level is 1 grand), politicians themselves may donate 6 grand (sauce;http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalelections/a/contributions.htm). However donations of 20$ or less don't have to be disclosed, I worked at a conservative convention once(anecdotal i know) and between speakers they would pass around hats/buckets for donations, some people were putting 20$ every single time. Doesn't have to be recorded but they just made a donation of about 100$ 10% the annual maximum. Regardless it doesn't take much imagination to see how such rules can be bent. Will this prevent large groups like unions and corporations from making huge donations? yeah probably, baring some massive fraud. It won't stop allot of people with disposable incomes significantly breaking the limit they can donate. Woah big deal I can afford to give the greens 5- 10$ once, this guy just gave 20$ like 15 times to the conservatives. So yeah disposable income is a big deal.

I've never been to a party convention, so I don't have the first-hand experience; but I always assumed that it's normally the richest and most zealous party members who are invited/attend, therefore no matter whose convention it is, they all have an opportunity to raise money in the way you suggested. I have no idea if that's actually how it works though.

Having parties receive 2$ for every vote helps to even the field a little bit, and it does help small parties all you need to be eligible is 2% of the national vote or 5% of a particular riding's vote. It's also a very equitable way of funding political parties, 1 vote 2$. Also its in addition to whatever pocket change people might donate. Here is a subsidy that helps the big parties, allot, and isn't nearly as equitable, funny the conservatives didn't want to scrap this one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... 294/page2/.

I fail to see how the second subsidy is any less equitable than the first--each party has the opportunity to receive back the same percentage of their expenses, as long as they reach a certain minimum level of votes. Are you suggesting the minimum level should be lowered? For that matter a person could also argue that the 2% required for the $2 subsidy be lowered so other fringe parties can benefit...I'm not sure where it would end. I'd be happy if both subsidies were cut.

The reason I made the comparison to Russia, is this is a seemingly minor procedural change that will have serious effects to the ability of opposition parties to perform. Why doese this remind me of Russia? because the current situation in Russian politics was achieved through a variety of changes which benefited Putin. First they eliminated the FPT districts, this wiped out all of the independents(which at the time made up about 20-30% of the Russian parliament), then they raised the minimum % of the vote to be eligible for getting a seat in parliament from 5% to 7% this just so happened to be enough to wipe out all but the communist and Putin's party. Is eliminating the Per vote subsidy the same thing? no not at all, but it is reminiscent of that kind of thing. That is an utterly self serving alteration to the political rules.

What the Conservatives are doing has nothing to do with changing districts or the requirements for getting a seat in parliament. That comparison is really stretching it, but if you see some kind of connection...well, whatever floats your boat, man. I posted an article showing clearly the benefits of party funding based more closely on grassroots support, and those points still stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be more worried about the short-term difficulties a party would face while bypassing the long-term benefit to Canadian politics as a whole. Btw if you check out that article, you'll see someone responded with quite well-reasoned post which the author in turn responded to--you might find it interesting.

As another side not, have you been able to find a Canadian paper with a fairly balanced view on politics and social issues? I usually read the National Post, but I find it annoying that it's so strongly Conservative; however the Goble and Mail seems just as biased (but in the opposite direction). I'd like to read a paper that incorporates both viewpoints, but maybe I'll just have to skip back and forth between the two...

[BigBallinStalin]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

[keiths31]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

None...will never happen

[Nendreel]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

The 1995 referendum was the closest Quebec has come to seperation, but things have calmed down quite a bit since then. It would take a major incident to stir up seperation sentiments again.

[Baron Von PWN]

For that to be the case we would have to reduce the minimum donation much further than it currently is. At the moment the minimum you can donate is a little over 4 grand (assuming you donate at all levels of thee political process, the minimum to one level is 1 grand), politicians themselves may donate 6 grand (sauce;http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalelections/a/contributions.htm). However donations of 20$ or less don't have to be disclosed, I worked at a conservative convention once(anecdotal i know) and between speakers they would pass around hats/buckets for donations, some people were putting 20$ every single time. Doesn't have to be recorded but they just made a donation of about 100$ 10% the annual maximum. Regardless it doesn't take much imagination to see how such rules can be bent. Will this prevent large groups like unions and corporations from making huge donations? yeah probably, baring some massive fraud. It won't stop allot of people with disposable incomes significantly breaking the limit they can donate. Woah big deal I can afford to give the greens 5- 10$ once, this guy just gave 20$ like 15 times to the conservatives. So yeah disposable income is a big deal.

I've never been to a party convention, so I don't have the first-hand experience; but I always assumed that it's normally the richest and most zealous party members who are invited/attend, therefore no matter whose convention it is, they all have an opportunity to raise money in the way you suggested. I have no idea if that's actually how it works though.

It wasn't actualy a party convention. It was a convention for conservative interest groups, and they were collecting money for the conservatives. Sorry that might have been unclear. Either way, I think my point still stands that a party representing less affluent interests won't have the same opportunities for fund raising.

Having parties receive 2$ for every vote helps to even the field a little bit, and it does help small parties all you need to be eligible is 2% of the national vote or 5% of a particular riding's vote. It's also a very equitable way of funding political parties, 1 vote 2$. Also its in addition to whatever pocket change people might donate. Here is a subsidy that helps the big parties, allot, and isn't nearly as equitable, funny the conservatives didn't want to scrap this one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... 294/page2/.

I fail to see how the second subsidy is any less equitable than the first--each party has the opportunity to receive back the same percentage of their expenses, as long as they reach a certain minimum level of votes. Are you suggesting the minimum level should be lowered? For that matter a person could also argue that the 2% required for the $2 subsidy be lowered so other fringe parties can benefit...I'm not sure where it would end. I'd be happy if both subsidies were cut.

It less equitable because the more you spend the larger your subsidy. So it just reinforces the most successful(fund-raising) parties. At the bottom of the article they offered a summary of the subsidized dollars per vote. Other parties may benefit if they have 5% of a single riding.

The reason I made the comparison to Russia, is this is a seemingly minor procedural change that will have serious effects to the ability of opposition parties to perform. Why doese this remind me of Russia? because the current situation in Russian politics was achieved through a variety of changes which benefited Putin. First they eliminated the FPT districts, this wiped out all of the independents(which at the time made up about 20-30% of the Russian parliament), then they raised the minimum % of the vote to be eligible for getting a seat in parliament from 5% to 7% this just so happened to be enough to wipe out all but the communist and Putin's party. Is eliminating the Per vote subsidy the same thing? no not at all, but it is reminiscent of that kind of thing. That is an utterly self serving alteration to the political rules.

What the Conservatives are doing has nothing to do with changing districts or the requirements for getting a seat in parliament. That comparison is really stretching it, but if you see some kind of connection...well, whatever floats your boat, man. I posted an article showing clearly the benefits of party funding based more closely on grassroots support, and those points still stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be more worried about the short-term difficulties a party would face while bypassing the long-term benefit to Canadian politics as a whole. Btw if you check out that article, you'll see someone responded with quite well-reasoned post which the author in turn responded to--you might find it interesting.

As another side not, have you been able to find a Canadian paper with a fairly balanced view on politics and social issues? I usually read the National Post, but I find it annoying that it's so strongly Conservative; however the Goble and Mail seems just as biased (but in the opposite direction). I'd like to read a paper that incorporates both viewpoints, but maybe I'll just have to skip back and forth between the two...

I didn't say it was the same thing, only that it was reminiscent of that.

I usually read the CBC, I don't think they are all that biased, maybe a bit towards the liberals? In terms of a single publication I don't know of one.

[Baron Von PWN]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

The 1995 referendum was the closest Quebec has come to seperation, but things have calmed down quite a bit since then. It would take a major incident to stir up seperation sentiments again.

Ditto. The bloc/Parti Quebecois(the more important organization for the whole separation thing) has even dropped separatism from their official goals. Instead they militate for "sovereignty" which basically means more control by Quebec of Quebec's affairs but still within Canada. So more accurately autonomy.

Though given a change in political attitudes they'd bring separatism back.

[Baron Von PWN]

Harper proposes a one on one debate. Igantief calls his bluff. Harper refuses the debate with some more whipping of the dead coalition horse.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... tieff?bn=1

[Baron Von PWN]

NDP would hire more doctors and Nurses, with an emphasis on family doctors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... day-7.html

Also Harper promises to end political subsidies if given a majority.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... -1029.html

[BigBallinStalin]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

The 1995 referendum was the closest Quebec has come to seperation, but things have calmed down quite a bit since then. It would take a major incident to stir up seperation sentiments again.

Ditto. The bloc/Parti Quebecois(the more important organization for the whole separation thing) has even dropped separatism from their official goals. Instead they militate for "sovereignty" which basically means more control by Quebec of Quebec's affairs but still within Canada. So more accurately autonomy.

Though given a change in political attitudes they'd bring separatism back.

What's wrong with that?

[Baron Von PWN]

What are the current chances of Canada's Quebecois (-ies?) seceding?

The 1995 referendum was the closest Quebec has come to seperation, but things have calmed down quite a bit since then. It would take a major incident to stir up seperation sentiments again.

Ditto. The bloc/Parti Quebecois(the more important organization for the whole separation thing) has even dropped separatism from their official goals. Instead they militate for "sovereignty" which basically means more control by Quebec of Quebec's affairs but still within Canada. So more accurately autonomy.

Though given a change in political attitudes they'd bring separatism back.

What's wrong with that?

Not much in my opinion.I don't agree with them but I think its a perfectly valid political stance. Lot's of people get really worked up over them because its understood given the chance they would separate, which would basically mean the end of Canada. You won't find many people from Quebec who would consider the Bloc traitors. That's mostly an English Canada thing.

[Johnny Rockets]

Harper proposes a one on one debate. Igantief calls his bluff. Harper refuses the debate with some more whipping of the dead coalition horse.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... tieff?bn=1

I'm really surprised that a whole series of debates could not be supported by all parties and party leaders.

Really. How much time is needed to get together for a string or 2 hour debates on the whole campaign window? The networks would gladly fund it, and people would watch just for the entertainment of conflict. That being said, at least the common voter would be then more informed, and perhaps the turnout % would increase.

How better could Canadians get a more truthful dissection of platforms, promises, and character than this kind of exposure.

They should put this into law.

1- 1v1 debate between the head of opposition, and the P.M.
1 debate featuring the leaders of the opposition parties.
Several debates with all party leaders spaced throughout the campaign period to address new promises and to follow through on previous reversal of positions or other bullshit.

Hell, even if they were telecast from the campaign buses, or remote locations......I can be done.

JRock

[BigBallinStalin]

Harper proposes a one on one debate. Igantief calls his bluff. Harper refuses the debate with some more whipping of the dead coalition horse.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... tieff?bn=1

I'm really surprised that a whole series of debates could not be supported by all parties and party leaders.

Really. How much time is needed to get together for a string or 2 hour debates on the whole campaign window? The networks would gladly fund it, and people would watch just for the entertainment of conflict. That being said, at least the common voter would be then more informed, and perhaps the turnout % would increase.

How better could Canadians get a more truthful dissection of platforms, promises, and character than this kind of exposure.

They should put this into law.

1- 1v1 debate between the head of opposition, and the P.M.
1 debate featuring the leaders of the opposition parties.
Several debates with all party leaders spaced throughout the campaign period to address new promises and to follow through on previous reversal of positions or other bullshit.

Hell, even if they were telecast from the campaign buses, or remote locations......I can be done.

JRock

Even better: It should be a game show Family Feud set-up.

There would be 4-6 on each side behind a giant desk, and a question would be posed to both sides. Then each side would consult with each other and elect the most eloquent/informed of them to debate the issue. Tag-teaming is definitely allowed.

"Mr Prime Minister, I may be going OT, but weren't you sleeping with 14 year old girls a few nights ago."

PM: "Erm.. Er... TAG ME OUT, BRO!"

<BAM>

PM Teammate 1: "Isn't it true that your mother is a whore and has a very smelly cunt?"

"WAT!?"

<BAM>

[repeat x infinity] Just think of teh lulz!

[Baron Von PWN]

Harper proposes a one on one debate. Igantief calls his bluff. Harper refuses the debate with some more whipping of the dead coalition horse.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... tieff?bn=1

I'm really surprised that a whole series of debates could not be supported by all parties and party leaders.

Really. How much time is needed to get together for a string or 2 hour debates on the whole campaign window? The networks would gladly fund it, and people would watch just for the entertainment of conflict. That being said, at least the common voter would be then more informed, and perhaps the turnout % would increase.

How better could Canadians get a more truthful dissection of platforms, promises, and character than this kind of exposure.

They should put this into law.

1- 1v1 debate between the head of opposition, and the P.M.
1 debate featuring the leaders of the opposition parties.
Several debates with all party leaders spaced throughout the campaign period to address new promises and to follow through on previous reversal of positions or other bullshit.

Hell, even if they were telecast from the campaign buses, or remote locations......I can be done.

JRock

Even better: It should be a game show Family Feud set-up.

There would be 4-6 on each side behind a giant desk, and a question would be posed to both sides. Then each side would consult with each other and elect the most eloquent/informed of them to debate the issue. Tag-teaming is definitely allowed.

"Mr Prime Minister, I may be going OT, but weren't you sleeping with 14 year old girls a few nights ago."

PM: "Erm.. Er... TAG ME OUT, BRO!"

<BAM>

PM Teammate 1: "Isn't it true that your mother is a whore and has a very smelly cunt?"

"WAT!?"

<BAM>

[repeat x infinity] Just think of teh lulz!

Highly unlikely, Canadian politicians and politics in general typically avoids the personal lives of politicians.

[notyou2]

I am nervous Harper will get a majority. He scares the hell out of me. He is like a dictator in an elected officials clothing.

[Baron Von PWN]

Rick Mercer offers to moderate a debate between Ignatieff and Harper. Ignatieff is game, Harper can't reply as it would constitute a 6th question from the media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/20 ... ction.html

[BigBallinStalin]

Harper proposes a one on one debate. Igantief calls his bluff. Harper refuses the debate with some more whipping of the dead coalition horse.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... tieff?bn=1

I'm really surprised that a whole series of debates could not be supported by all parties and party leaders.

Really. How much time is needed to get together for a string or 2 hour debates on the whole campaign window? The networks would gladly fund it, and people would watch just for the entertainment of conflict. That being said, at least the common voter would be then more informed, and perhaps the turnout % would increase.

How better could Canadians get a more truthful dissection of platforms, promises, and character than this kind of exposure.

They should put this into law.

1- 1v1 debate between the head of opposition, and the P.M.
1 debate featuring the leaders of the opposition parties.
Several debates with all party leaders spaced throughout the campaign period to address new promises and to follow through on previous reversal of positions or other bullshit.

Hell, even if they were telecast from the campaign buses, or remote locations......I can be done.

JRock

Even better: It should be a game show Family Feud set-up.

There would be 4-6 on each side behind a giant desk, and a question would be posed to both sides. Then each side would consult with each other and elect the most eloquent/informed of them to debate the issue. Tag-teaming is definitely allowed.

"Mr Prime Minister, I may be going OT, but weren't you sleeping with 14 year old girls a few nights ago."

PM: "Erm.. Er... TAG ME OUT, BRO!"

<BAM>

PM Teammate 1: "Isn't it true that your mother is a whore and has a very smelly cunt?"

"WAT!?"

<BAM>

[repeat x infinity] Just think of teh lulz!

Highly unlikely, Canadian politicians and politics in general typically avoids the personal lives of politicians.

But a debate would be great. I think Obama was open to that on bailouts/"Obamacare" (can't recall), but then turned it down after realizing how risky it would be for his reputation.

[Baron Von PWN]

Ask Micheal Ignatieff anything!

http://www.liberal.ca/live/