# If there were an election right now, who would you vote for?



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It's a pretty straight forward question. Please answer honestly.

For those tempted to say it, I don't need to hear how there may indeed be an election shortly, please.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Done.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

For me, it still depends upon the overall party platform, and the person running here in St.John's East. With four parties to choose from (if the Green runs a candidate here), I am open to consider any and all parties/persons. Our current MP, Norman Doyle, is a fine person and would be considered a "red Tory".


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

In this poll I indicated NDP, but if the same Conservative candidate who ran in the last election runs again, I will vote for him, just as I did last time.

He is an excellent community leader, as far from the Reform mould as it is possible to be and still be a new Conservative.

But if he sits out, I can't think of who they could get that would appeal to me.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Maybe it's the blue staring eyes, but there is a certain something that doesn't seem right. Instinct doesn't have me trusting Steven Harper... (hold on.. that's what it was... he's a politician).

Maybe it's the stockholm syndrome talking, but I think I'm just fine with Paul Martin in power.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Nice to see this is going pretty well. I'm kind of surprised, and yet not at all surprised at the fact that the NDP is leading right now (11/30 votes thus far).

I do wonder what the other party is/parties are that 2 people are going to vote for.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, not wanting to rain on your parade, but syntactically speaking, this thread should read "If there were an election right now, for whom might you vote?" rather than "If there were an election right now, who would you vote for?" Still, it's an interesting idea to get us thinking sooner...................rather than later. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> I do wonder what the other party is/parties are that 2 people are going to vote for.


the communist party and the marijauna party.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Newfoundland Liberation Party?
Labrador Independence Party?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G ....too much marking methinks 

Other party can be Independent of which there are two and who knows maybe more this round.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, these are legitimate registered parties, with active members. NL shall become the new Quebec I fear.

Sadly, many here in Newfoundland treat Labrador the way Ottawa treats NL.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Are we done with this poll?

NDP wins?

Works for me.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I dunno. There have been 47 votes, and that easily covers most (if not all) of the more active posters on the forum.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

If the NDP won, I would be extatic! 
Even just to see so many of their surprised/shocked faces in the HOC 
Given the demerits of both the Liberals endless corruption/ennui with being in power
and the Cons Springing endless right wing surprises on the disadvantaged of Canada

What have we to lose? (this is rhetorical Macnutt)
James


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

PB - 47? I wouldn't say that covers most of the active posters in the forum. *Maybe* this section. After all at last count we've had 1315 members active in the last 30 days, but how many actually come to Everything Else, and even to this specific thread?


----------



## KardnalForgotHisPassword (Oct 14, 2004)

I agree with Dr. G... It would depend on who the candidates were running in my riding. If the Conservaties ran socially liberal candidate, I'd be very tempted to vote for them. If not, mostly like the Liberals.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Chealion, how many of them post more than just every once in a while? How many post once or more in a week?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

PB - I don't know. The number 1315 (1316 as of today) is just a record of who has been here in the last month. (March 14th to April 14th). I'm hoping to learn a little Python and regular expressions so that the statistic loving part of my brain can give you a number that excludes those who have just joined or have a number posts less then a certain amount. However, I'm pretty sure this won't be happening for a month or two.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

why do you guys you voted for liberal still support them?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I shall not tar the entire Liberal party for the actions of a corrupt handful of supporters. Even if Jean C. was in charge of this corruption, it is he who should pay the ultimate price and not the party.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Obviously not all and as with the national figures the left side of the spectrum is up.
There is difference between poor judgement and poor policies.
I'm not thrilled with Martin as leader ( nothing to do with Adscam ), he has instituted controls and at least doing some surface scrubbing of the obivous abuses but every party has it's warts and after all - consider the alternative.

Mike Harris take II?? - no thanks.

The agenda



> Manning-Harris report backs private health care
> Health care bomb lobbed as possible federal election campaign looms
> 
> 
> ...


He thoroughly screwed over Ontario with his tax cut/privatize mantra ( anyone recall Walkerton ) now he wants to "do" the country and let some "experiments" occur. :clap: 

*another lipflapper extravaganza*







...........I bet Harper just loves this.......

NeoCon founder and "Hated in Ontario" join Ralphie to "help their bud"........


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The Liberals are either getting lazy or stupid and got caught. They should take JC and hang him (yes, yes, I'm from Alberta ). Stealing that much money from the people of Canada is treason as far as I'm concerned. Hey, if the Liberals want to try to get back Western Canada, offing the father of NEP would be a good start. Hell, I might even vote Libby, eventhough I've voted Green the last two elections... and in this poll. Go Green!


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

Election or not, as The Who sang about on Won't Get Fooled Again
...and I quote:
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Just as Ralph (is it my round?) Klein helped the Liberals win the last election with his "our legislation may contravene the Health Canada Act" only days before Canadians went to the polls, so may this "non-partisan" (cough cough) report from the Fraser Institute issued by Preston (I love that word "Reeeeefoooorrrrmmmm!") Manning and Mike (not so much 'common sense') Harris.

Seems Harper is not liked by his CON cohorts.

First Klein torpedoes the CONS hopes for the last election.
Now it's Harper's old boss Manning and Harris.
Didn't Manning something about Harper being an elitist last time round?

Perhaps these CON artists see Stronach as the better bet and hope Harper is knocked off his perch if he loses this upcoming election.

And as an aside, Peter McKay should resign. He lied to the old PCers when he promised to NEVER join with the Alliance/Reform.

I'll leave the fact the he dated/is dating Belinda Stronach out of this for now.
CON artists prefer CON artists? And who says money ain't everything, eh?
I guess Daddy Stronach approves. 

I wonder how many cheques he's written of late for Belinda's speech lessons, buying (or maybe just renting) Quebec CONs at $50K a crack, paying off Brian "Muldoon" Mulroney for his "advice."

But, if I hear Belinda Stronach claim, one more time, that she understands the "plight of single mother because she is one herself," I'm gonna puke.

Tick tock, tick tock, the clock is ticking for Stephen (I know better than you because I say I do) Harper.

One more thing. Klein prefers to have a Liberal gov't in Ottawa. That way he can claim to be the standard bearer for all things CON in Alberta. If the CONs were to actually form a gov't who would Klein bitch at?

I noticed how Albertans aren't pissed at the U.S. for banning their beef, but are pissed at Ottawa for money to cover their losses due to the ban on Cdn. cattle.

So do you want 'market forces' or don't ya?
Or only when prices are high?
Notice how quiet the booming, and I mean booming, oil industry in Alberta is?
P
Oil prices high. Market forces are good.
Cattle prices low. Market forces are bad.

How about a little Prozac for Alberta to help out with this manic depression?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, I would have to agree that if Harper loses this election, he will be gone as leader of the Conservative party. As to whom shall become leader, I have a sense that they might go with Stonach or a virtual unknown, with a "starting anew" approach. I think that this might work, in that I feel many are at a point of saying, "I want someone new". I don't know if that is the mood today which shall translate into a Harper victory, but we shall see.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> If the NDP won, I would be extatic!


theJST, prepare to be disappointed. Even if the Canadian public could ever get itself to the point where it could teach both of the other parties a lesson by voting NDP, even if they managed to form a government, it would be a hard, hard road.

Once in government, the business community and the conservative elements would do whatever it takes to sabotage the "left-wingers." The major media (with the possible exclusion of the CBC, though I wouldn't guarantee that) will relentlessly pick away at any misstep taken. The NDP would be held to a higher standard - an impossible one.

Our system of government is not designed to actually get anything done. Adversarial encounters in Parliament, stacking committees, yadda yadda yadda. If all parties actually agreed to just do the damn work that needs to be done to move this country into the 21st century, rather than engage in partisan sniping, we'd be a lot further ahead.

I have little optimism of a win, and less of a successful NDP government.

But I'd <b>love</b> to be proven wrong...

M


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Latest election euphemism courtesy Harper.......Cons would institute" a completely new fiscal arrangement for Federation"...........wow doesn't THAT cover a wide potential agenda.
Is the siren call to the Bloc?????


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Latest election euphemism courtesy Harper.......Cons would institute" a completely new fiscal arrangement for Federation"...........wow doesn't THAT cover a wide potential agenda.
> Is the siren call to the Bloc?????


that would play perfectly into Duceppe's hands
the only reason i can figure that Duceppe would support a snap election is to put the CONs in power, let the CONs screw Quebec and then poof! - referrendum, Quebec is gone and Canada not too far behind

If quebec goes, what's to stop alberta from leaving?
they have all that oil


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sad to say, but I could envision Macspectrum's scenario. Amazing to think that Jean Cretien spent most of his political life fighting for federalism, and the sponsorship scandal will potentially cause a Bloc/PQ victory and separation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> If quebec goes, what's to stop alberta from leaving?
> they have all that oil


In all the years I have lived in Alberta, I have never met one person who is a serious separatist. I don't think that should be a concern, in spite of the fact some of you think of us as ********.

We are Canadians first.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Same here SINC. But Alberta/British Columbia would be a powerhouse if it ever did split from Confederation, no? 

Macdoc....in light of the most recent polls (which continue to show exactly the same trends as previous ones)...how can you possibly claim that the left is on the rise? It's not even holding it's own. And the NDP is sinking almost as fast as the disgraced Liberals, fer goshsakes!

One more thing. Anyone who claims that this most recent scandal was simply the result of some limited criminal activity by a few members of Jean Chretien's personal friends and staff....allow me to enlighten you.

This was a small part of the widespread ond ongoing graft and corruption that has been a key part of the Liberal method of doing business as a political party. And it's only the tip of a very big iceberg!

If you wanted to root out and remove all of the criminals in the Liberal party, then you'd gut the party itself. Certainly the Qubec wing of it.

Get used to the idea. More will be coming out on this subject in the very near future.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Interesting tidbit: the Liberal Party controls 64 seats in the senate last time I counted.

If the Conservatives win the next election, and somehow manage to convince all the other sitting senators to vote with them (Conservatives, Progressive Conservative, Independent NDP, et al), fill the remaining empty seats, and invoke the clause that lets them add 8 more seats, they still won't have a majority in the senate, the liberals would still have more seats.

In other words, nothing would get done.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thing most of those Senators seem to be sunning themselves on some distant tropical beach when the votes actually take place, eh? 

Note: this may change once the new Federal government arrives in office.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

If there was a choice for "don't know", I'd choose that. Even though I can't stand the fact that there was a publication ban for the Gomery thing, I can't penalize the MP where I love because of a handful of corrupt Liberals. why can't they just fire the ones who are found guilty (even jail term) and move on with it? 

But I'm also looking at the NDP then maybe the Green Party. So my choices are probably NDP, then Liberals, then Green. but i need to learn more about the NDP's policies first.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Good thing most of those Senators seem to be sunning themselves on some distant tropical beach when the votes actually take place, eh?


I'm pretty sure that they'd all be back if the Conservatives do manage to eek out any kind of win. In fact, they wouldn't even all have to come back to maintain the majority of votes.

And the senate can reject any bill it pleases.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sketch...

If they actually fired all of the Liberals who've been a part of some corrupt activities over the past ten years then the whole core of the party would be gutted. There wouldn't be enough of them left to run a hotdog stand. Let alone manage the affairs of a nationwide political party.

These guys are toast. In more ways than one.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

PB...if the Liberal appointed Senators managed to wake themselves from their slumber and attempt to defy the mood of the Canadian voting public on this scandal....then they'd all soon find themselves held in far lower esteem than they now are. Which would put them several magnitudes south of "used car salesman", I'd think.

Aint gonna happen.

Besides...all of their jobs are up for revue once the new government is sworn in. And they KNOW it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm not saying it's not a dumb situation, or that they'd block every single bill. I am saying that it is a way for the Liberals to make sure that they aren't ignored, though.

Since Senators can't be un-appointed unless they miss two full sessions of parliament, and serve until they are 75, how exactly do you think the Conservatives are going to press any kind of reform through?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt,
if you keep saying "tomorrow it will rain," one day you will be right

"even a broken clock is right twice a day"

there are cycles in all things
politics is no different

if the CONs do get in, I don't think Joe Canuck will like what they will start doing to his/her institutions after a short while

Remember Mulroney and his "empire?"
He destroyed the PC party.

If the CONs can convince the avg. Canadian that they represent the middle of the political spectrum they will get in.
But, if we have more "non-partisan" reports from the Fraser Institute, questioning the viability of things that Canadians hold dear, like health care, that are soundly endorsed by Harris and Manning, it could let the Liberals eek out another minority.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

If the Cons manage to eek out a minority, a majority without Quebec seats being pretty unlikely, nothing will get done in the House as well as the Senate, as PB points out. Which party in the House is going to easily co-operate with the Cons agenda? A Con minority would be even less able to govern than the current Liberal minority, because they would have no natural partners, who could easily stomach their more right wing policies. So they will have to really soft-pedal any legislation they put forward and not even hint at privatizing health care or going to war, "shoulder to shoulder" - to use their own terminology, with the USA.

Unlike MacNutt, I don't pretend to know in advance what is going to happen. But given what I'm hearing in the news, *my guess* would be that the Cons could win a minority, the Libs would lose seats and the NDP will increase their totals, maybe even close to or more than the Libs total. The Bloc will wipe out remaining Lib seats in Quebec, except for a few and the Cons will fail to gain a foothold there.

The situation is very fluid and things could change rapidly. As for a Liberal wipe-out, like Mulroney's PCs, I highly doubt it. If the Cons look too greedy for power and force an election that people right now say they don't want, the new Parliament could look a lot like it does now.

BTW, MacNutt, now that you are back out of your closet, why don't you visit IronMac's thread and give us all what you promised?

Cheers,


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Getting there GA. But I'm having far more fun because of this latest Liberal meltdown over here right now. As you might expect. 

(THIS is Big News. That, on the other hand, is a minor diversion.)

Pollsters are all over TV and the papers today and many are saying that a Conservative majority is a distinct possibility in this upcoming election. All have noted that the NDP do not seem to be reaping any sort of rewards as Canadians flee from the Liberal party. In fact, by almost all acoounts, the NDP are also sinking in popularity.

Pipe dreams from anxious leftoids apart, how can anyone expect the NDP to somehow GAIN seats in the next election?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Pollsters are all over TV and the papers today and many are saying that a Conservative majority is a distinct possibility


Oh really? Name one. I think we can find the info ourselves if it exists. Just tell us where you heard this. I'd like to read this, if it's actually out there, that is.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Getting there GA. But I'm having far more fun because of this latest Liberal meltdown over here right now. As you might expect.


Oh really? Could it be "all hat - no cattle"?

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No...that would be as in "I've been wrestling this particular giant grizzly bear for about three years now...and I'm finally winning the fight. About to floor the sucker and skin it alive. Excuse me if, during all of this knock down drag out carnage, I fail to notice that there is a small yappy dog tugging at my pantleg and trying to get my attention at the same time."

Got it?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Fact challenged again, MacNutt?



> 33 per cent of respondents would vote for the Tories in the next federal election.
> 
> The governing Liberal party is second with 27 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 24 per cent—a five per cent increase in a week—and the Bloc Québécois with 11 per cent.
> 
> Angus Reid





MacNutt said:


> Got it?


Oh yeah, I got it. Your actions speak loudly and clearly.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Check this more recent Ipsos-Ried poll. It shows the NDP as having dropped four points while the Tories soar. It also says "Ontario turns Tory blue". This seems to be a favored headline these days. All over the place.

www.prdirect.ca/en/view_release.aspx?TrafficID=2446

"Fact challenged" yet again GA? Or is it just wishful thinking from someone who has had to suffer rather a lot of ideologically related disappointments of late?

(hint...prepare yourself for even more of the same.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Anybody happen to notice the small disclaimer of *"of decided voters in Canada"* in the polls.......lifted right from your poll Macnutt. 
When a party ranges from 15% to 24% in a 3 day stretch.........( the NDP ) perhaps it's a bit "unknown". You think perhaps there's a whole lot of "undecided voters" at this point .....you bet?????/

a) the fat lady ain't even in the dressing room 

b) recall what happened to "polls" and Con hopes election night and their "champagne on the plane" talking majority and they didn't get to triple figures.

WHEN somebody pulls the trigger THEN trends may emerge - right now it's all over the map EXCEPT

a) no election now ( 89% according to Macnutt's choice pollster)
b) get on with governing

....course the lipflappers including the chieftains of the clan, Klein, Harris and Manning et al will keep the din high......best thing that could happen to the Libs.
Interesting times.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Ipsos-Reid poll that you quoted:


> These are findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll for CTV and The Globe and Mail, conducted from April 10th to April 12th, 2005. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1000 adult Canadians were interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled.


The Environics poll that I quoted was actually a larger sample size smaller margin of error and conducted until a day later:


> Source: Environics Research Group
> Methodology: Interviews to 1,200 Canadian adults, conducted from Apr. 11 to Apr. 13, 2005. Margin of error is 2.9 per cent.


The huge difference in the NDP numbers point to the unreliability of polling as a whole. Yours says 15%, the Environics poll says 24%.

But MacNutt, seriously, I do commend you on actually finding and posting a link, although your poll wasn't later, as you claimed. I knew you could do it. Even though this one was basically a wash, don't you think it's better and more authoritative than "trust me on this"?

Looking forward to more of seeing you actually attempting to back up your arguments.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Happy B-day GA!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey Thanks, thejst!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Gotta go for today. Hey you guys, try and keep Mr. MacNutt honest, eh?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

All this arguing, and my question went unanswered.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Watch the coming polls if you want to see where it's all going. The next few weeks should be rather "illuminating".

For some of us. (BTW...the rest of us have already figured it out. Do try to stay current.) 

And does _ANYONE_ here really think that the NDP is going to make some sort of an amazing comeback at the federal level? Especially since many of us have already lived through Provincial NDP governments...and we ALL know how THAT turned out! Don't we? 

Grasping at straws. Most unbecoming, really.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Why can't you just answer my question?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Which question is that THIS week PosterBoy?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I should also note here that....according to the current score on this poll at ehmac...

The Liberals and the NDP will win the upcoming election in a cakewalk. The Conservatives will be a distant third.

Does anyone else here think that this might be a slightly skewed and ideologically-driven batch of wishful thinking?

Has anyone here actually picked up a newspaper or watched the evening news lately?

Just asking....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Which question is that THIS week PosterBoy?


The big question for the last couple of weeks seems to be whether or not you're Scot (aye, even man enough) enough to face me in the "IronMac's Bad Calls" thread.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nice attempt.

The few Irish genes that are floating around in my system got a tad riled at that...but, luckily, the Scots DNA took over and let out a great huge LAUGH!! And then Highland logic took over in it's usual cool and calculated way.  

Maybe tomorrow or the next day, Ironmac.

Better yet...wait until the current Liberal meltdown is a done deal. I'm having great fun at this right now, and I've been waiting for this precious moment since long before you ever signed on here. It's rather a big thing for me.

Or...you could continue to freak out and bounce off the walls on your thread, while I'm having a fine old time over here.

Your choice.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The few Irish genes that are floating around in my system got a tad riled at that...


Ahhh...I was wondering where all the "blarney" was coming from! 



MacNutt said:


> but, luckily, the Scots DNA took over and let out a great huge LAUGH!! And then Highland logic took over in it's usual cool and calculated way.


Really? I guess that explains the running for the hills. Which come to think of it, may explain why some of the clans decided to live in such inhospitable places...they couldn't handle the competition.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Which question is that THIS week PosterBoy?


The one you ignored on the first page of this thread, you can read it here.


----------



## iMan (Feb 22, 2005)

I would vote liberal baby!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Back again for a short visit from a very busy work week.

PB...in answer to your latest question about how the incoming Conservative government could possibly replace all of those Liberal-appointed "Senators", given that they have some sort of long term contract or some such...

Answer: An act of Parliament that would make sweeping reforms in the whole Senatorial system. Which is just about what the Conservatives were promising to do, the last time I looked.

This major (and long overdue) change in the Canadian political system would replace all of the appointed Senators and their phoney baloney jobs with REAL Senators who would be elected by the actual voters in each region of the country.

No way in hell that any of the old appointed drones who were put there by the former Liberals would have any place in this newly empowered "second sober body". Unless they managed to get themselves legally elected...and then actually intended to show up for regular sessions in the upper house in order to earn their fat paychecks. Not much chance of that, given their record.

And I doubt if many Canadian voters would squawk about it, either. Or call this massive sweeping change "illegal". Especially given what we now know about the Liberals and how they treated their friends to all sorts of under the table goodies. For a suitable kickback, of course.  

The current Senate is just another expensive Liberal do-nothing clown act. Cancel it, and replace it with something that actually has a function. And some real power.

Something that WE, the voters, have elected.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Funny how the Conservative backers don't have a problem with the Senate when they have the upper hand in the Senate.

Laterz


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree, in part, with Macnutt's view of the Senate. I feel that it should be abolished. I don't care if it is Liberal or Conservative domination of this chamber, but the fact that it is not elected is what I oppose.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

My riding continues to be contested by unknown backbenchers of little presence... so I vote for the party...


I have always been a Trudeau Liberal, though not enough of one to be "Card-Carrying", I tend to lean liberal when I vote but that is not automatic.


Maybe this is just me... But The Conservatives will never again make great inroads in Québec... That is between the Bloq and the Liberals.

Ontario is still in Anti-Harris mode. Canada overall is still in Anti-Mulrooney mode. Central and East Canada have yet to warm to Reform/Alliance particularly since they call themselves Conservatives and have the blessing of Mulrooney...
Without Ontario and Québec, I do not see a Conservative Government.

The sponsorship scandal, while a big deal, {and people involved should go to jail} is not resonating with John Q. Public. Poll after poll indicates that the people do not want another election.

As for the media, when the news of testimony gagged by the inquiry sent us all to foriegn website to read about "Earth shattering revelation that would destroy the current government and maybe the Liberal Party...", All we found was that politicians paid off their friends and wasted Taxpayers dollars, {while arguably} thwarting the separist threat during a reverendum"


WOW... knock me over with a feather... Oh... My... Gawd!!!!

Politicians? Wasting money or bellying up to the trough...

IF/When the next election is forced upon us, the party responsible will pay a price. If the Cons call it, I think we will see a slim Liberal Majority, just to spank Harper. If Martin calls it, I think we wil see a smaller Liberal Minority that will be forced to seek the support of the NDP...

Which is what I would have preferred last year...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JAMG, what about an NDP minority government seeking support from the Liberals?


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> JAMG, what about an NDP minority government seeking support from the Liberals?


I would not be fundementally opposed to that, but I do not think the NDP has that kind of support nationally. 

But then who thought Bob Rae would be premier of Ontario either.

An NDP minority would depend on truely earth shattering testimoney sticking with what i think is a politically jaded public. I think we will see more anger over the calling of a summer election than pork barrel politics...




But that option of an NDP minority could make for interesting times...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JAMG, I see your point. Still, the NDP has not had the tainted experiences of forming a government, and I could just see a sudden shift to their candidates in certain key areas. One never knows.......


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

If the ehMacian Poll represents the average Canadian (whatever that is) it looks like an NDP minority government is a possibility. Whooda thought?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Peter Scharman said:


> If the ehMacian Poll represents the average Canadian (whatever that is) it looks like an NDP minority government is a possibility. Whooda thought?


Prime Minister Layton has a good ring to it.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let me know if you see any pigs with wings flying by your window, Dr. G. 

The dismal economic performance of past NDP governments in several Provinces pretty much rules out any sort of mass migration to that particular party during this time of Liberal meltdown. The polls certainly don't seem to show any rise in support for them at the Federal level, either. Rather the opposite really.

And, outside of the rareified atmosphere of reality distortion that exists here on ehmac, the Conservatives seem to be doing rather well. Certainly better than any other party. At least at this particular moment. 

Anyone who imagines that the result of all of this outrage against the Liberals will be yet another Liberal government...or even a Liberal MAJORITY...is simply in total denial right now.

But a lot can happen after the election is called. Many surprises lay ahead. 

Either way, it should be an interesting election.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I doubt they can form the government but I think the NDP will gain the most out of the comming election. Followed by the Bloq.

The Liberals have the most to loose, of course, other than Martin who would loose his Prime Ministry...

Harper will have difficulty keeping his job too, if the Cons do not win big...

Jack Layton looks like he will be either a King maker or crowned King by default...

I still think we will see a Liberal NDP coalition, followed by a Liberal Leadership review and a New PM... followed by another election in a year or two...

Call me cynical...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> An act of Parliament that would make sweeping reforms in the whole Senatorial system. Which is just about what the Conservatives were promising to do, the last time I looked.


The problem is that an act of Parliament has to pass through both houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. The Senate can reject any bill it pleases, and it currently is dominated by the Liberal Party of Canada.

So how, exactly, do you think the Conservatives would be able to push through any reforms?



MacNutt said:


> The current Senate is just another expensive Liberal do-nothing clown act.


It's important to remember that when the Conservatives were defeated in 1993 the Senate was just another expensive Conservative do nothing clown act. Don't make it sound like the way the Senate works is somehow the fault of the Liberal Party, that's just dumb. It is now as it was created by the Fathers of Confederation, the BNA Act and our first government (which happpened to be Conservative).



Dr. G said:


> I agree, in part, with Macnutt's view of the Senate. I feel that it should be abolished. I don't care if it is Liberal or Conservative domination of this chamber, but the fact that it is not elected is what I oppose.


I feel similarly, in that my primary gripe is that it is not an elected body. The fact that it is appointed leads directly to the type of situation I just outlined for MacNutt. Personally, I feel the Senate neds to be reformed, not abolished, as if it was rejiggered just a little bit it would bring important and equal regional representation to the hill. As it stands right now, it's just an old boys club.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, a reformed Senate would be acceptable. However, I find it far simplier to abolish it unless it was to take on a US-like model of an equal number of senators from every province.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Indeed, Dr. G, that is what I would like to see. Whether it's by province or by region, equal representation from each.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, yes, it would be hard for ON to have an equal amount of senators as PEI.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As noted previously PB....any Liberal appointed senators who were seen to be actively preventing this much needed and long overdue reform of the Canadian political system would be forced to face the collective scorn of the majority of the voting public.

It wouldn't be pretty.

Besides...they mostly don't show up for any of these votes anyway. No matter how important the issue is. Too busy sunning their fat bellies on some tropical beach I'd expect.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> PB, yes, it would be hard for ON to have an equal amount of senators as PEI.


I like the idea of equal representation from each province. However, I think each Maritime province should probably only get half the number of seats (or maybe 0 for the Newfies  ) as the other provinces.

Ontario and Quebec will have to learn to live with it. I think it would help to restore some balance to our current system, where a PM is generally chosen before votes from the west are counted.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> any Liberal appointed senators who were seen to be actively preventing this much needed and long overdue reform of the Canadian political system would be forced to face the collective scorn of the majority of the voting public.


Name one? Last I checked the only party that was really pushing senatorial reform was the <del>Alliance</del> Conservatives. <i>addenda:</i> It's not like voting it down would be opposite to their platform, and would allow them to continue to hold the power. Besides, at the moment it's not like they are not being scorned by a good portion of the population.



MacNutt said:


> Besides...they mostly don't show up for any of these votes anyway. No matter how important the issue is. Too busy sunning their fat bellies on some tropical beach I'd expect.


A lot of them don't show up very often, but as I said before I'm pretty sure they could be convinced pretty easily. Not only that, but they wouldn't even all need to be there. They could go in shifts.

Another interesting tidbit is that with our system the Government only really needs the support of Commons, not the senate. In other words, the Liberals could conceivably stop any bill the Conservatves put forward in the Commons, but still put forth bills in the senate that the Conservatives would be unable to stop.

Interesting, that.

As to what they do when they aren't attending the votes, I have no idea and neither do you. You're constant trying to paint them as lazy good for nothings is getting old though. Especially when you consider that the senators from other parties aren't really any better.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vandave, re your comment "I like the idea of equal representation from each province. However, I think each Maritime province should probably only get half the number of seats (or maybe 0 for the Newfies ) as the other provinces.", take care, my friend, and sleep lightly. Doxies from Newfoundland and Labrador can track you down. You can run, but you cannot hide.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

This is why I have learned to appreciate the regional system. If each region had an equal number of seats then we'd still end up with the same demographics represented.

So it was say, the west, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador & the Maritimes, and the territories as the five regions, it could work out nicely.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes - a regional setup makes way more sense for Canada ala Australia but getting it done....ugh..

THEN .....an upper house also makes sense composed of PR aligned appointees 
ie the upper house is totally PR and each region has equal numbers in total, split by party affiliation. Personally I prefer indirect appointment - ie the upper house mix is determined by the voting percentages but the best people appointed. Many really good "movers and shakers" detest the politics of the process so stay away from public office.

That lets the lower house be based on a specific riding but I think the FPTP has to go .....have a ranked system to better reflect the political milieu of a specific riding adn get rid of strategic voting situations.

The current situation is a nascent new federation structure in the making - how it plays out?  .......interesting times.

Not much of any "national" leader in the mix


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Actually, it makes more sense for the lower house to be PR while the upper house remains with a system of equal, regional representation.

Getting it done wouldn't be hard, either. If we make NFLD and the Maritimes one region, and increase the number of seats in the Senate for the west, Ontario and Quebec by 6 each, then you have equal regional representation. If we keep the same system of determining how many seats in the Commons (which is determined by, among other things, population), but switch to instant run off voting to determine who actually sits in them, you end up with a better reflection of what the people actually want (and we'd be rid of strategic voting, which runs pretty rampant under our current FPTP system of voting).

Of course, switching to a true PR system in the lower house would be better if only because they everyone who gets a big enough percentage of the vote ends up with a percentage of the seats. The Green Party would likely benefit from this, as they have gained 4-5% of the vote in the last few elections but have yet to gain a seat. PR would give them 4-5% of the seats, which I think they deserve.

The problem lies with the fact that right now, no matter who is sitting in the commons, it'll have to be a proposal that the Liberals like because they control the upper house.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, point of information. There is no longer a province of Newfoundland. The correct name for our province (NL) is Newfoundland and Labrador.

Still, as you say, control of the "upper house", a body of unelected persons, controls any change to our system.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Dr. G, I know! that's why I called it Newfoundland & Labrador in my second to last post. If I am not mistaken, though, is not NFLD still the proper abbreviation?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, I stand corrected. You did use the proper name for NL (which is the proper abbreviation) in the previous posting. Mea culpa.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

As do I. NL it is.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Right now, it will depend upon who each party puts forth in St.John's East to move me off of my position of "I am still not sure" position. Still, I don't want an election right now.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't either, and likely neither do most BC residents. We already have an election coming up in May, and we all know how much people like to vote in two elections one right after another.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PB, don't get me wrong. I love the right to vote. I am a political "junkie". However, I don't see this as the correct time. Just my opinion.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I've voted, and will vote in, every election in which I have the right to do so. All I am saying is that strategically speaking, scheduling one election right after another is just dumb, because many (I dare say most) people are pretty apathetic about voting in the first place. 

Of course, I think this is the wrong time also. I think the closest thing we'd have to the right time at the moment is after this inquiry is over and we know the extent of the corruption, and what will be done about it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Huh. I just checked the Globe and Mail website, and it turns out that Paul Martin shares my feelings.

<blockquote>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050421.wmartin0421_2/BNStory/Front/

Prime Minister Paul Martin offered to call an election within 30 days of the final report from the Gomery commission, in an extraordinary prime-time address to Canadians Thursday night.

He made the speech in an effort to stem the damage the sponsorship scandal has caused the Liberal party and to appeal directly to Canadians.
"I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say."
Mr. Martin said he takes responsibility for the actions of his party and is prepared to let Canadians judge his response to this test of his leadership.

"I will be politically accountable. But I believe that before there is an election, you are entitled to answers — to the answers that [Mr. Justice John] Gomery is working toward," he said.</blockquote>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PR takes away direct riding representation and as far as I'm concerned that's a no go especially for a country this size.
I vote for a person that represents my riding.
I'm quite happy to have a better method of scoring representatives who would represent this riding but "no taxation without representation" is a strong part of the democratic structure and you cannot have that with a pure PR system.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc, that's the reason to have a second house, one that uses a system of direct, regional representation.

Or, a switch to instant run off voting with our current riding system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Damn missed the speech - I thought that would be the substance.

We'll see who listens to the "no election now" sentiment in the other parties.

Wonder what a poll about immediate election would look like NOW.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

PR skews the results of what people actually want.
In my riding, I vote for the person who I think will do the best job. In the last election, there were a bunch of new people and during the debates and public appearances, failed miserably to get any attention. That is why the incumbant Liberals won such a landslide.

Nevertheless, I will not punish my representative for the wrong-doing that he had no part in. Moreover, I will have to see what comes out of this mess before I make a decision on which party to vote for.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Damn missed the speech - I thought that would be the substance.
> 
> We'll see who listens to the "no election now" sentiment in the other parties.
> 
> Wonder what a poll about immediate election would look like NOW.


Hey MacDoc, I don't think you missed much... in fact you may want to hear what MacNutt has to say... I actually think that me might be right on this one.

[Edit] Err maybe not... you decide.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

poisonmonkey said:


> PR skews the results of what people actually want.


Out of curiosity, how do you figure that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You can't have every riding represented in an upper house.

Lower house is traditionally the house of the specific geographic representation while upper houses are regional ( 2 senators per state etc ). The lower house setup is fine but the voting structure for those reps sucks.

Upper house by PR provides the "sober second thought" it is supposed to as determined by regional representatives with a larger overview than the local MP.

A Senator in the US represents the State as a whole and sometimes there is one from each party and sometimes there is a unified political affiliation.

If we take a number say 120 upper house reps split amongst 5 regions and each region by PR I'd say that gives a good mix of the riding representation and the regional representation.

It would not require separate elections for the upper house but would likely result in a somewhat variant mix than the lower house.

If that happened in the last election the NDP would have a much higher representation in the upper house and the Bloc much lower so the upper house reflects Canada as a whole AND by major region but NOT by riding.

There needs to be a ydnamic between upper and lower and regional versus riding that provides checks and balances in both houses and gives a voice to both the regional/all of Canada view in the Upper house and the local view/riding view in the lower house.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

The reason is that people then vote on a whim. While it gives everyone a "voice" and every vote is counted, it makes for a weaker government. And in Canadian Poltics, a strong governement is needed, look at what has happened in the past with minority governments.

Also, in voting for a party, you are unsure of who your representative will be... which for me messes things up huge b/c then you don't know who to complain to!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc: You can have every riding represented in the upper house, the ridings would just be bigger. 

120 seats is a touch low, it'd probably have to be either 123 or 126, depending on how many seats you wanted to give to the territories.

PR makes more sense for the lower house because that is where most of the work gets done, and where most of the power is, which is where you want who the people want to be.

In the senate, you want a smaller body to provide second thought and regional representation. Making it PR takes away much of it's accountability to the ridings, and to the region. I suppose you could give each region a cerain number of seats and elect them proportionally for the region (ie: 60% of western residents want Conservatives, so 60% of western seats are Conservative), but even that makes the regional representation more indirect. 

It makes more sense to have the second house directly accountable to it's regions when you consider that regional representation is supposed to be one of it's most important functions.

As I said, too, a simple shift in voting systems would allow for a more fair election with our existing riding system in the lower house. In fact, I'd prefer instant run off voting for the senate if it becomes an elected body, too.

poisonmonkey: A lot of people that I know already vote on a whim. But even if that is the case, at least they are voting for something rather than against something, as so often happens now.

Also, you do have a good idea who will end up in your seats when you vote for their party, either by a published list of who gets in and in what order, or one of a couple other systems.

It's not to say that a strong government couldnt be formed with PR, too. Not only could one party sweep the vote (though that is unlikely), but there is such a thing as a strong coalition.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> poisonmonkey: A lot of people that I know already vote on a whim. But even if that is the case, at least they are voting for something rather than against something, as so often happens now.
> 
> Also, you do have a good idea who will end up in your seats when you vote for their party, either by a published list of who gets in and in what order, or one of a couple other systems.
> 
> It's not to say that a strong government couldnt be formed with PR, too. Not only could one party sweep the vote (though that is unlikely), but there is such a thing as a strong coalition.


While I would like to see more party representation, and coalition governments are possible, I don't like that list. Because MY Candidate may not be there. For me I want to deal with a person moreso than a party.

When voting FOR something, I feel that you get way too many ideas being presented, like in a student council. When voting for and against, you at least ensure two ideas. This leads to a more directed agenda. Also, in PR you'll may revert to ideological parties. This makes room for some fanatics, and I don't want to see this country lean any further to the right or left for that matter. With the current brokerage style with first past the post there is at least some thought to staying in the middle. (I like the middle, it feels relatively safe)

I'm not against PR, I just don't think we are ready for it just yet. Maybe after this upcoming election.  And I would have to look further into PR, it might just work, skewed or not.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is good.

We seem to be moving past the idea of having a powerless appointed senate, and are now actively discussing how to re-make this sham into a powerful voice and an active, dynamic part of our Canadian government. BRAVO!!

About time, too.

Now, ask yourselves which political party is totally comitted to giving us the chance to create a second sober body? One that is Elected, Effective and Equal.

Then think very hard about voting for them in this upcoming election. Or...you could vote for more of the same old same old, and abandon any idea of a brand new and effective Senate.

Your choice.


----------

