Nicker on 29/4/2011 at 10:59
Immediately following President Obama’s inauguration in the USA, our dear cousins to the south began campaigning for the 2012 presidential race. Here in Canada things are a bit more compact. In fact, due to its precipitous speed, it might have escaped the notice of many Yankees that a federal election was called here some six weeks ago and on Monday, May 1st, we go to the polls.
While elections are comparatively brisk affairs here in Kanuckistan, they have of late been embarrassingly frequent. This will be our third in seven years owing to the fact that our parliament has been in a minority situation for some time. (This means that the ruling party does not have sufficient seats to ram legislation, unopposed up Canada’s pooper – it must appeal to the parties in opposition for ample lubricant to ease the way.)
Bored already? Please skip to the last paragraph.
A minority government should be able to run things quite equitably, relying on compromise, concession and common sense, to forge reasonable legislation agreeable to the vast majority of Canadians (65%) who, by virtue of our somewhat perverse system, are represented by Members of Parliament in Opposition. Regrettably the three-C’s have been confounded by the three-P’s; partisan party pricks.
Everyone blames everyone else for this latest and unnecessary election, but I think it is fair to hold the ruling Conservative party responsible since they have; A) been using the threat of an election to bully the opposition into approving distasteful legislation, B) been using 30 million or more of our tax dollars in a six month campaign of propaganda crowing about how generous they have been to us with our own money, and C) they had a raft of very slick and expensive attack ads ready to roll the moment the election was called.
To add insult to injury, one of the first laws this same Conservative government ever passed was to set fixed election dates in order to prevent the strong-arm tactics that they themselves have been using for the past seven years.
This election is shaping up to be a convoluted and unpredictable affair. The Conservatives (who are coloured blue up here) have not moved much in the polls, hovering between 30 and 35 %. In the past, Conservatives in Canada have been mostly concerned with financial stability and steer away from social issues. But a decade or so ago the Reform party (itself a coalition of Tea Party flavoured factions) managed to erode the Conservative base so badly that the right was forced to roll over and unite under one blanket. The offspring of this cursed union was the demon child, Stephen Harper, the most devious, autocratic and unscrupulous Prime Minister this country has ever had the decency to despise. No small achievement in this land of crooks and honey.
The left of center vote has been more dynamic. The Liberals (coloured red in Canada) traditionally represent the majority of Canadians (financially conservative and socially liberal) and have formed most of our governments over the decades. The NDP (who were purple but are now orange) once represented the more extreme left and while they have formed a number of successful provincial governments, have never been much more than spoilers and kingmakers at the federal level (polling around 15 %).
In the last week the NDP have made considerable and precipitous gains, overtaking the traditional favourites, the Liberals, in the popular vote. They seem poised to form the official opposition... EXCEPT, due to our @*($^# *#$#@ first-past-the-post system, this may mean that the left of center vote will be split and Harper will jack-boot his way to a majority government.
So, to my purpose - if you, our beloved cousins to the south and lovers of freedom and decency the world over, hold Canada in any esteem, especially for not being the USA, please, please, pleeeeeeease pray, sacrifice some livestock, dance naked under the full moon or do whatever it is you can to help prevent this disastrous result!
Thank you.
New Horizon on 29/4/2011 at 11:45
The election is May 2nd, not May 1st. Is this another case of "The Harper Government" trying to derail votes? ;)
Nameless Voice on 29/4/2011 at 11:53
Seriously, would the rest of the world get proper preference voting already?
demagogue on 29/4/2011 at 14:40
Preference voting lets fringe factions & single-issue agendas get a lot more political capture than they're worth, and you have to tolerate Faustian compromises with them that respectable modern governments shouldn't have to tolerate. First-past-the-post internalizes the tug and pull inside the parties themselves, and historically it's moderated them (it's supposed to anyway), I mean in the actual policy making that gets done, once you look past the rhetoric. Anyway there are situations when both have their advantages and disadvantages.
I like that aspect about FPTP, but I admit it breaks down and doesn't do what it's supposed to when a fringe faction captures a Party machinery itself, like the Tea Party was doing in the US (I don't know if it will have legs into 2012 or not; some say it's already jumped the shark) and I guess the Harper faction has done in Canada.
I'd say the best way to deal with fringe factions is pull together and remind them why they're fringe by a flood of normal people voting. It helps in the US, there are only 2 parties, so we don't have to worry about a "splitting the vote" problem; so the self-preservation instinct of the Republicans themselves should hopefully squeeze the fringe element out (I can only hope). But FPTP with more than two parties in Canada makes it even harder if there's a real risk you split the left of center vote.
Nameless Voice on 29/4/2011 at 16:05
In the USA, the single voting means that there can only ever be two parties now, no third party has a chance to get a foothold. Having so little choice can never be a good thing.
And, frankly, I don't think two parties is a democracy, it's a rotating monarchy, where the people get to vote which of two royal family gets to be King.
That's not saying that preference voting will magically fix the biggest problem with politics: the vast majority of people are idiots who will vote for the worst possible leaders. Ireland has always had preference voting, and it generally hasn't stopped known corrupt politicians being voted in again and again, term after term.
Queue on 29/4/2011 at 17:40
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
And, frankly, I don't think two parties is a democracy, it's a
rotating monarchy, where the people get to vote which of two royal family gets to be King.
Therein lies the misconception found with most Americans and the rest of the world. The United States is
not a democracy, nor do we operate as such--it is a Republic. Even says so in our pledge of allegiance: "... and to the Republic for which [the flag] stands ...."
{From Wiki: A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government. The term is generally also understood to describe a government where most decisions are made with reference to established laws, rather than the discretion of a head of state, and therefore monarchy is today generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic. One common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch.
In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison compared the republic to democracy, and found democracy wanting. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.
Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee(s) to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."}
{From some lunatic's site, but the information is correct: These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.}
Quote:
In the USA, the single voting means that there can only ever be two parties now, no third party has a chance to get a foothold. Having so little choice can never be a good thing.
It's not single voting that prevents a Third-Party candidate from achieving the Presidency, it's our method of utilizing an Electoral College. Third-party candidates can be (and are) elected to the House, Senate, State Governorships, and any other form of governmental office.
{From Wiki, again: The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.
The election for President and Vice President is not a direct election by United States citizens. Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.}
Sg3 on 29/4/2011 at 19:30
Vote from the rooftops. That's the only way to get anything done properly.
Nameless Voice on 29/4/2011 at 19:59
Quite a long article there, but ... yeah. (Apart from the bit about some beard in the sky granting rights.)
The whole idea of a president with that much power is a bit flawed; most other democratically elected countries have the power spread over far more representatives. Of course, the US president also doesn't have quite as much power as he is generally perceived to have, either.
The problem that you can't get away from, no matter how you arrange things is that, unfortunately, the majority of voters tend to be morons, no matter the system. On the one hand, I like the idea of the Swiss system, who have local votes to decide on most important issues... on the other hand, this is the same country that repeatedly repealed movements to allow women to vote until 1971.
Back to Canada, my point stands that the fact that people are forced into voting for someone they don't really want to get into power (the lesser evil) to prevent someone they absolutely don't want in power (the greater evil) to get in... is just wrong.
On a totally unrelated note, it's also legally possible for the USA to elect, say, a Democratic president and a Republican vice-president. Pretty much guaranteed to never happen, though.
demagogue on 29/4/2011 at 21:12
Quote:
It's not single voting that prevents a Third-Party candidate from achieving the Presidency
Actually yes it is. It's called Duverger's law and it's one of the few solid empirical theories of political science that's true & non-trivial. It's got about all the empirical and statistical support you could want for a theory. Well, it's not a hard rule, there can be exceptions, but does pretty well generally for most cases.
Just in pure mathematical terms, a FATP system simply doesn't allow demographic space for a third party to ever get a plurality of the vote. When there is 3rd Parties support in America, they're basically all protest parties against one of the major parties not expecting to win (or single issue driven parties that don't care about winning either).
It's hyperbole to say it isn't a "real" democracy or doesn't allow for a spread of preferences, though. It's just that Political Preference Dynamics get internalized within Party platform and candidate selection. There's a whole theory about it where Parties cleave around certain big dualities -- North-South, country-city, interventionist-libertarian, and there's now a new pressure to split a new cleavage, splitting both parties, nativist-cosmopolitan ... and then are quite inclusive within that towards fringe preferences pushing their platforms open in practice.
Most every (liberal democratic) country basically has the same political dynamics in some form, but they get put into practice differently depending on the structure. Really enlightening to study comparative politics in that respect.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
On a totally unrelated note, it's also legally possible for the USA to elect, say, a Democratic president and a Republican vice-president. Pretty much guaranteed to never happen, though.
The first competitive US election had this happen (1796), because 2nd place got VP, so the competing parties got President & VP (Adams & Jefferson). It led to such awful working environment that they passed the 11th Amendment that put the President & VP on the same election ticket so it wouldn't happen again, at least without the President selecting an other-party VP himself.
Volitions Advocate on 29/4/2011 at 21:59
I've always been a tory, and I've found a lot of the arguments against the Conservative government to be really tin-foil-hat, and its not because I'm a partisan. To be fair, the new Conservative party is not the party I've voted for in the past, If Preston Manning was still running the Reform party I'd probably vote with them. I miss the PC party. On that note however, I keep hearing the same tired arguments from the liberal and NDP party that I just get sick of hearing. I don't trust either one of those parties to fix the country right now. I'm sick of attack ads from ANY party, and I've got to say I think the ONLY party that is running that seems to be honest and transparent to me is the Green Party, but I wouldn't give them my vote considering that my local Green candidate is a 1st year university student in business and managment, who is 4 years younger than i am and has blue hair.
seeing as how its a parliamentary system, I find voting for the candidate is more important than voting for the party, and my local Conservative candidate has retired this year. So I really don't know who to vote for, personally I wish that even half of the 60% of the population that never vote would go out and vote for one of the fringe candidates in their riding. I would love to see Joe Canadian's Beaver Liberation Front to take power and watch the gong show that follows.
At least the NDP is taking votes away from the Party Quebecois, the party who only run in Quebec and who's only platform is to help Quebec and screw the rest of the country, (while trying to hide the fact that they're STILL just a bunch of separatists).
Its all screwed up, but I have to say, all of the people talking about how the Conservative government is an affront to democracy is being sensationalist. And its almost enough for me to ignore everybody else and just vote the way i always have. With the tories.
