Next Federal Election

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I think the first thing we need is electoral reform. If we don't do something about our current system, we're doomed to the current failure of successive majority governments flopping apathetically between two parties, both completely owned by corporations, without a majority mandate. So, whatever party will champion proportional representation as an election promise in the next campaign has my vote.

Also, we need to do something a) about the Senate and b) about the inherent inability of a 5-year House to be responsible for long-term directions. A good answer would be elected senators, 10 year terms, age limits 50-70 when first elected, completely non-partisan (membership in a political party would be a disqualifier), tasked with approval of House legislation strictly in view of its long-term implications.

And yes, I remain afraid of, and vigilant against, the violence of our southern neighbours creeping north of the border. One of our great advantages in this particular case is our "undersized antique" military. Means we don't have an influx of PTSD veterans into our police population - I'm sure that's at least PART of the problem down there.
 
I well remember testifying to a huge committee of the Senate (all Conservatives). It was stunning to testify to people who didn't have the faintest understanding of the topic.

One of the reforms we need is much tighter limits on election spending. The reason why we get ownership by the very wealthy is because they're allowed to contribute so much - almost all of it to Liberals and Conservatives; sp nobody else has a chance. Over the last 40 years, in particular, the very rich have taken over our governments They ARE now our governments. It will take something close to an uprising to change that.

As for the US, there are no such things as friends between nations. The notion that there are is pure, news media and political bafflegab. The US is very soon going to want our water - and our Arctic resources. And they will not hesitate to use force to get them.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I think the first thing we need is electoral reform. If we don't do something about our current system, we're doomed to the current failure of successive majority governments flopping apathetically between two parties, both completely owned by corporations, without a majority mandate. So, whatever party will champion proportional representation as an election promise in the next campaign has my vote.

Also, we need to do something a) about the Senate and b) about the inherent inability of a 5-year House to be responsible for long-term directions. A good answer would be elected senators, 10 year terms, age limits 50-70 when first elected, completely non-partisan (membership in a political party would be a disqualifier), tasked with approval of House legislation strictly in view of its long-term implications.

And yes, I remain afraid of, and vigilant against, the violence of our southern neighbours creeping north of the border. One of our great advantages in this particular case is our "undersized antique" military. Means we don't have an influx of PTSD veterans into our police population - I'm sure that's at least PART of the problem down there.
Click to expand...

Yes. Proportional representation worked out so well in the Weimar Republic! PR just creates its own problems. It's simply undemocratic in a different way, by allowing small parties a disproportional influence on government policy. The need for continual coalitions means that it's impossible for voters to really know what they're voting for - not to mention the fact that PR systems mean that decisions about who governs get made behind closed doors with who knows what promises are being exchanged between parties and leaders. Some proportional systems try to get around that by being unproportional - establishing a floor of support before a party is allowed representation. Personally, I'd prefer the single transferable ballot, where the voter ranks the candidates, and the bottom choice keeps getting eliminated until someone has 50%.

I certainly agree with graeme's call for tighter controls on spending - and also for limits on spending outside of election campaigns.
 
I greatly fear we may have passed the time for democratic reform. Manipulation of people by he news media will not be touched by democratic reform. As well, democracy is pretty much gone due to that manipulation and to the power of big money. The basic and essential reform is to re-establish democracy. But the very wealthy are not going to allow that to happen. And they have access to legal force. As well, I don't know how once could reform news media (in North America, at least) have become so professionally corrupt. I'm afraid we're looking at a deteriorating condition. That usually leads to violence - and violence rarely makes things better.
 
"I'm not sure that I really understand how, with at least four established political parties from which to choose, you couldn't choose the best? In some way, closest to your opinions, views, strategies, etc." BetteTheRed

"Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they choose evil... Acceptance of lesser evils is consciously used in conditioning the government officials and the population at large to the acceptance of evil as such." Hannah Arendt

My political choice is anarchy. This reflects my decision and determination to follow in the way of the crucified (of all times and places and by all available means) who offer an alternative to the structures of power by which the masses are exploited and oppressed. For me to cast a ballot is to turn aside from the deep convictions of my conscience and will. For others to fault me for holding firm to principle is a simple consequence and in no way indicative of error in either my assessment of our predicament or its consequence.

"A nation of sheep soon begets a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

"I have seen the future and it is murder." Leonard Cohen

George

An indication of my bias:

 
I notice this in the public discourse, where the word "citizen" has been near fully eclipsed by the word "consumer". A sad and frustrating state of affairs likely to end in violence, as you suggest.
 
But I'm not entirely sure that you can fix the system by refusing to participate in it.

What is wrong with the 'principle' of democracy? That each person is entitled to a vote for the person of their choice to represent them in a parliament of their peers? I understand that the practice has been violated by money, the lust for power, etc., but the principle is still a good, and potentially fair, way to govern a large group of people?
 
"But I'm not entirely sure that you can fix the system by refusing to participate in it."

I do not vote. This does not mean I do not participate. Just today I was reflecting on my experience some years ago. In the space of one year I was served notice of a 363 review by the Church and I was prosecuted on five criminal charges by the State. This following my public advocacy for the right of the poor to full inclusion in the social good of the nation. The Church failed to complete their mandate and the State found me not guilty on each of the five criminal charges.

That was in Vancouver. I will attach a few short clips showing my participation while a Chaplain at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops BC.




I do not vote but I influence others who do vote. My concern is ever and always with the ethical as cornerstone of the political. Where the political eclipses the ethical, chaos follows.

Perhaps you know Plato's Republic? I suspect his notice of democracy as a precursor to tyranny is sound. The persistent problem of rights trumping responsibilities.

George
 
An NDP/ Liberal coalition? Mulcair has made comments about it in the past week (in remarks he made on St. Patrick's Day about mentioning something to Trudeau at the Irish Embassy, that were either false or forgotten by Trudeau or got misunderstood by the media - who knows?). Would this, if it were to happen, happen before or after the election? If before, what would that mean for the election? Good idea or bad idea?

I plan on voting. No party is perfect - yes they all run for power to some extent and it's too bad if the party label means more to them than the future of Canada - but I think it's crucial that as many as possible vote in this election regardless. If I thought she'd win, I'd vote for May's Green party - she's principled and honest - but it's such a long shot, I likely won't.
 
Last edited:
"If I thought she'd win, I'd vote for May's Green party - she's principled and honest - but it's such a long shot, I likely won't."
@Kimmio ... well I guess she will never win if everybody thinks like you do ... Win Place or Show ... it's not a horse race is it.?
 
UnDefinitive said:
"If I thought she'd win, I'd vote for May's Green party - she's principled and honest - but it's such a long shot, I likely won't."
@Kimmio ... well I guess she will never win if everybody thinks like you do ... Win Place or Show ... it's not a horse race is it.?
Click to expand...

She (or her party) might in two elections from now, slowly and steadily (not unlike the NDP - they were a fringe party for ages, never seen as having a chance and eventually they gained) but she doesn't have enough support or following to form a government and everyone knows that - we need a change of government now, IMO. She never stands a chance if one of the two (or both) the Liberals and/ or the NDP doesn't win this time. I think this is the most important election ever. I think either one of them is a nudge in the right (or left) direction - although I'm not impressed with some of Trudeau's positions lately. He seems like a nice guy but lacks experience and fortitude.

Actually, I think May should consider crossing the floor herself. She can possibly re-group later.
 
Last edited:
I also think, rather than just getting people out to vote - I wish people took more of an interest and were educated about the issues. Many people have become apathetic and have decided it makes no difference who gets elected and they ignore politics - especially young people - but it does matter - to them most of all! It's not just a game that old folks play. I know a few that have thought that way for years, and in past years maybe that was the case - when the issues didn't change much and the Libs and Cons were flipping back and forth - but not now. I think that's how a lot of young people see it though - they feel irrelevant, and have therefore turned their backs on participating.
 
Last edited:
I think voting indicates we are a democracy. When I see countries who desperately want to vote, yet are shot, or attacked because they do, and we who can vote, don't. It scares me. If we had no vote, if we decide not to choose who will run this country, you know the extremists, like Harper, would have a field day. So as hard as it is, I vote, that is my way of keeping Canada democratic.

At this point the NDP has more of what democracy is, than the others. The Green Party does have a lot, but it is a branch of the Conservatives, but more democratic, than the far right winged party this government is.

The churches can play a big part to get students out to vote, and young people. We don't push a Party, but we can encourage getting out to vote. Such as a reminder in the bulletin that each Party will pick up voters to get to a polling station can help.

The Old Testament and even the New Testament, are boldly within a political environment and often influence how people think.
That is how changes are made, at the grass roots. The movements across the world have shown there is an unrest among the regular population everywhere. Something is not going down well, and people are beginning to be openly upset about it. The Occupy Movement, the riots we hear about and see in the News, are a deep unrest. The Powers have it too good and are becoming too hardened by their own status. Power corrupts, absolute power is corrupt. It is addictive, like a drug.

Harper should have known all bubbles burst. The bubble of high oil prices went on too long. He didn't prepare for the inevitable breaking of high powered oil pricing. It's kind of like, we had 65 years notice of the baby boomers ageing, yet we are floundering on many fronts to address that whole issue.

Back to the voting... please exercise your right to vote, so we can keep that right alive and well.

Peace to this morning... and to you...

 
I've heard people say before that the Greens are more conservative. I don't quite understand that. Not from anything I've heard from Elizabeth May. It seems to me she has the attention of more left-leaners, but maybe some in the middle. May calls out the PCs louder and clearer than anyone else in parliament, and she does it without being really nasty, just honestly.

According to Wikipedia, the Greens principles are:

-ecological wisdom
-non violence
-social justice
-sustainability
-participatory democracy
-respect for diversity

That all sounds okay to me. However, as I said, I'd like to see a change in government and, to that effect, I'm afraid that a Green vote would be a wasted vote this time around.
 
Last edited:
let's get away from terms like liberal, conservative - they don't mean a thing. Nor does progressive conservative mean conservatives who are progressive

The reality is that the two major parties are owned by the very, very rich. That's why they are the major parties. They're the only ones who can get money from the very, very rich to run campaigns. It's more obvious in the US where Hillary Clinton has already raised a billion dollars. But it's as bad here. As well, almost all news media are owned by a very small circle of the very, very rich. That's true all over the North america. And most of the news media circulate pure propaganda. It's most obvious here in New Brunswick where one family owns just about everything, including the private news media - and the family openly intervenes in government. This has a lot to do with the anti-terrorism bill. In fact, the RCMP has for decades been spying on protest groups, calling them potential eco-terrorists or, earlier, communists. Tommy Douglas was spied on for years. And every year, the RCMP has been reporting its findings to big business. CSIS is now doing that job.

The result is that we don't have democracy. Democracy does not mean simply the right to vote. It means having truthful information. It means parties being able to compete on equal terms. It means informed Canadians publicly discussing issues. We don't have that. (Especially in New Brunswick.)

What we ( and the US) do have is a population with a high proportion of sheep who are suckers for a Harper who runs a campaign of fear and hatred approaching racism - or for a Trudeau who is nothing but a name.

The only way the NDP has been able to get money is by watering its programme so much that the party, even if elected, would not be able to make essential changes.

As for throwing votes away, you are doing it no matter who you vote for.

In the US, this situation is becoming dangerous as millions no longer bother to vote. When that happens, violence is almost inevitable.

Voting does not indicate we are a democracy, not any more than a herd of sheep saying ba-a-a indicates that sheepdom is democracy.
 
Graeme,

You are painting a hopeless Utopia even for the rich and powerful as equity would cost them dearly being where industry's heart lies ...

Now if democratic equality leads to the pitz for industrious peoples ... will this come out the other side of this accepted reality as something altruistic? Like a peak experience in the fall!

Perhaps when coming outside the disk ... or the other side of our flat out Gael Lack Zea ... some commentary on holes in the Milky Way this past week on CBC ... a real spacy projection for ripples in the field we see as an array of stars wit something to the other side of eM!

Is a sea of word (God) a state of chaos for those no gaining some distant understanding of Classic Tongues (past expressions)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top