Comments on: Stephen Harper’s Prorogation & Canada’s Parliamentary Failure http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure Informed Vote (informedvote.ca) will keep Canadian voters informed on Canadian Politics such as Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green, as well as foreign issues like the Israel palestine conflict and local issues like the CUPE strike Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:31:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: gerry lowry http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-5563 gerry lowry Sun, 01 May 2011 03:30:29 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2227#comment-5563 imagine what Stephen Harper could do to erode Canadian democracy with a majority government and five years between elections. imagine what Stephen Harper could do to erode Canadian democracy with a majority government and five years between elections.

]]> By: Erik http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-4780 Erik Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:12:57 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2227#comment-4780 Waybon, please don't be the person who tells people not to be swayed by spin, and then in the same breath says that BCers didn't reject PR. BCers DID reject a PR system. You may not have liked the particular PR system, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a PR system. The BC-STV PR system was suggested for the province by a citizen's assembly, and you or anyone else can do their 'homework' at: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public True, there were definitely complaints that the system being proposed had its flaws, but so does a straight FPTP westminster system. The choice was there. Perhaps it could have been tweaked if implemented, but that ship has sailed. I doubt BCers will get another chance any time soon, so I'm afraid you're stuck with politics as usual, and the man you refer to as "Soupy". Moreover, BCers rejection also hurts the odds for Canada to implement a system, STV style, German style (which I had also mentioned), or other. As for Meech Lake, again, you are projecting spin. Meech Lake was Mulroney's baby, (Conservative), and although Elijah was certainly a key part of its final quashing (and had his own reasons), public distaste for it was increased when Trudeau came out (of retirement) to deride it. I'm sorry that voting strategically bothers you, in fact, I agree, it should bother everyone. But too bad. Voting any which way is what's got us here. That was my point. There are too many parties on the left diluting the votes, while on the other hand the right is untied, and thus, without voting strategically, Harper continues to have his way with elections. As for voting strategically 'denying democracy', again, I thought I had expressed that this outlook seems unaware of the fact that we have a democratic system, not a utopian free for all. People have a very idealistic vision of democracy, which is nice, but it's easy to exploit in a system that isn't direct and isn't proportional. This is what Harper does. People assume democracy is pure and simple across the board, but it isn't, it's systematically different from city to countryside, from province to territory, from state to state. People tend to get the theoretical principal of democracy mixed up with the way in which the process is actually facilitated. And this idealism, or outlook, ironically contributes to the marginalization of the very people it's supposed to empower. You can disagree with it, and stick to the theoretical principle of democracy until you're blue in the face, but it's not going to change the fact you're living in a state that utilizes a system which is irrespective of the theoretical principle in many ways, and is in fact, wasting your vote. So don't be surprised when people like Harper, who understand the system so well, take advantage of that. Last election there was a great site called: voteforenvironment.ca, which helped Canadians break down their ridings to see where their vote may have been best put to use (in terms of which party). It was a 'strategy' of sorts, but not for one party, as I have suggested people vote, but for any party that maybe has a chance of taking their riding and has an environmentally progressive platform. It wasn't specifically partisan, but naturally, it wasn't suggesting one votes for the Conservatives, considering their love affair with the environment. You may find it interesting next time. However, I believe my final suggestions hold- vote strategically to get Harper out, then make the party you voted for (especially if its a brokerage party) work for YOU. You could join the party, vote on policy, suggest a PR system you like better than the STV, or don't join, but write your local MP with your suggestions. Voting idealistically and waiting for the perfect system of PR to drop out of the air is going to get you right back to where you are now: disempowered with a non-directly elected despot having his way with your country. Good luck with that. Waybon, please don’t be the person who tells people not to be swayed by spin, and then in the same breath says that BCers didn’t reject PR. BCers DID reject a PR system. You may not have liked the particular PR system, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a PR system. The BC-STV PR system was suggested for the province by a citizen’s assembly, and you or anyone else can do their ‘homework’ at: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
True, there were definitely complaints that the system being proposed had its flaws, but so does a straight FPTP westminster system. The choice was there. Perhaps it could have been tweaked if implemented, but that ship has sailed. I doubt BCers will get another chance any time soon, so I’m afraid you’re stuck with politics as usual, and the man you refer to as “Soupy”. Moreover, BCers rejection also hurts the odds for Canada to implement a system, STV style, German style (which I had also mentioned), or other.
As for Meech Lake, again, you are projecting spin. Meech Lake was Mulroney’s baby, (Conservative), and although Elijah was certainly a key part of its final quashing (and had his own reasons), public distaste for it was increased when Trudeau came out (of retirement) to deride it.
I’m sorry that voting strategically bothers you, in fact, I agree, it should bother everyone. But too bad. Voting any which way is what’s got us here. That was my point. There are too many parties on the left diluting the votes, while on the other hand the right is untied, and thus, without voting strategically, Harper continues to have his way with elections.
As for voting strategically ‘denying democracy’, again, I thought I had expressed that this outlook seems unaware of the fact that we have a democratic system, not a utopian free for all. People have a very idealistic vision of democracy, which is nice, but it’s easy to exploit in a system that isn’t direct and isn’t proportional. This is what Harper does. People assume democracy is pure and simple across the board, but it isn’t, it’s systematically different from city to countryside, from province to territory, from state to state. People tend to get the theoretical principal of democracy mixed up with the way in which the process is actually facilitated. And this idealism, or outlook, ironically contributes to the marginalization of the very people it’s supposed to empower.
You can disagree with it, and stick to the theoretical principle of democracy until you’re blue in the face, but it’s not going to change the fact you’re living in a state that utilizes a system which is irrespective of the theoretical principle in many ways, and is in fact, wasting your vote. So don’t be surprised when people like Harper, who understand the system so well, take advantage of that.
Last election there was a great site called: voteforenvironment.ca, which helped Canadians break down their ridings to see where their vote may have been best put to use (in terms of which party). It was a ‘strategy’ of sorts, but not for one party, as I have suggested people vote, but for any party that maybe has a chance of taking their riding and has an environmentally progressive platform. It wasn’t specifically partisan, but naturally, it wasn’t suggesting one votes for the Conservatives, considering their love affair with the environment. You may find it interesting next time.
However, I believe my final suggestions hold- vote strategically to get Harper out, then make the party you voted for (especially if its a brokerage party) work for YOU. You could join the party, vote on policy, suggest a PR system you like better than the STV, or don’t join, but write your local MP with your suggestions.
Voting idealistically and waiting for the perfect system of PR to drop out of the air is going to get you right back to where you are now: disempowered with a non-directly elected despot having his way with your country.
Good luck with that.

]]> By: Waybon http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-4773 Waybon Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:05:36 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2227#comment-4773 British Columbians did NOT reject Proportional Representation (PR), anybody who thinks we did has not done their homework on what was being offered. The referendum that was defeated was about a flawed system that would have made it a great deal more difficult to get rid of despots and extremists like Stephen (Ken and Barbie) Harper and Gordon (Soupy Sales) Campbell. Even if that flawed referendum had passed, after the BC election in May 2009 the Greens would still not have a seat in the BC Legislature. If we are going to have PR then let us base it on something useful, practical, and functional like the New Zealand Model or the German Model. I do not agree that we will have to vote "strategically" if ever we are to be rid of the "Kens" and "Soupies." The track record of the Liberal Party of Canada is not much to brag about. They have used their positions of power and control over the years to "push" through legislation that many of us did not agree with. Thankfully we had a man of conscience, Elijah Harper, on our side when the Liberals tried to shove the flawed and dangerous Meech Lake Accord into law. Voting strategically leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and denies democracy. The second choice is voting with our hearts, not very realistic when it means denying reality. This brings us to our third option, refusing to vote which is as unproductive as the other choices. The forth and final option then becomes the only real option, stand up for what you believe in and vote accordingly. Don't be swayed by the rhetoric, the spin and the spin doctors, be informed, be involved and vote with your head and nothing else. British Columbians did NOT reject Proportional Representation (PR), anybody who thinks we did has not done their homework on what was being offered. The referendum that was defeated was about a flawed system that would have made it a great deal more difficult to get rid of despots and extremists like Stephen (Ken and Barbie) Harper and Gordon (Soupy Sales) Campbell. Even if that flawed referendum had passed, after the BC election in May 2009 the Greens would still not have a seat in the BC Legislature. If we are going to have PR then let us base it on something useful, practical, and functional like the New Zealand Model or the German Model.
I do not agree that we will have to vote “strategically” if ever we are to be rid of the “Kens” and “Soupies.” The track record of the Liberal Party of Canada is not much to brag about. They have used their positions of power and control over the years to “push” through legislation that many of us did not agree with. Thankfully we had a man of conscience, Elijah Harper, on our side when the Liberals tried to shove the flawed and dangerous Meech Lake Accord into law. Voting strategically leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and denies democracy. The second choice is voting with our hearts, not very realistic when it means denying reality. This brings us to our third option, refusing to vote which is as unproductive as the other choices. The forth and final option then becomes the only real option, stand up for what you believe in and vote accordingly. Don’t be swayed by the rhetoric, the spin and the spin doctors, be informed, be involved and vote with your head and nothing else.

]]> By: Erik http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-4701 Erik Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:12:44 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2227#comment-4701 agreed, Fair Vote is great. Thanks for the reminder (and the link), Wayne! agreed,

Fair Vote is great. Thanks for the reminder (and the link), Wayne!

]]> By: Wayne Smith http://informedvote.ca/2010/01/13/stephen-harpers-prorogation-canadas-parliamentary-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-4693 Wayne Smith Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:04:02 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=2227#comment-4693 Sign Fair Vote Canada's <a href="http://www.fairvote.ca/en/civicrm/profile/create?gid=7&reset=1" rel="nofollow">Declaration of Voters' Rights</a>! Sign Fair Vote Canada’s Declaration of Voters’ Rights!

]]>