News   May 01, 2024
Four-Tower Complex North of Finch Station Grows in Resubmission
 1.1K     1 
News   May 01, 2024
TMU Urban and Regional Planning Alumni Celebrate 25th Annual Spring Reception at Little Canada
 306     0 
News   May 01, 2024
Ballin' Out for Charity: Toronto's Real Estate Basketball Event Scores Big for Youth Empowerment
 350     0 

Travers: The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy

Yeah there will be no election in a while.

Igantieff see's its better to have a "climatic" election, where people will be actually interested and involved which usually favours the opposition. Also you "heal" the party by getting money and actually getting back into shape as it use to be.

I would say an election next year will likely be a proper election.

Really since in the last 20 years the only two proper elections where the 1993 election and the 2006 election.


Harper is in a hard place. He has nothing nothing at all to run on. There is no Liberal corruption or GST cut or Carbon tax this time...
 
I just read that the Liberals are having a policy conference in the Fall, which would support the idea of no election until the Spring.
 
jks said:
Oh, god, I wish for nothing more than to see Jim Flaherty kicked headfirst out of office as the Oshawa PM, and even more as the finance minister. I so wished the NDP candidate kicked him out. It cam e somewhat close...:eek:
Click to expand...

Wrong seat. Flaherty's in Whitby-Oshawa, where the NDP was mired solidly in third. You must be thinking of Oshawa, where Colin Carrie is the Tory incumbent regularly facing stiff NDP challenges...
 
lordmandeep said:
About coalitions, they suck and I long for the days of majority govts. Sure majority govts are like 5-year dictatorships but atleast thier is stability and the Govt can actually do something.
Click to expand...

China is pretty stable.
How about Cuba?
Venezuela?
The new-new Russia?
Iran?
The Warsaw Pact countries were VERY politically stable!

All pretty interesting and lovely countries socio-culturally but politically? Stable, yeah, sure......would you want to live under those political machines?


Coalitions are the best way of ensuring as wide-spread a social influence on politics as possible which is the best kind of stability a society could ask for. I know they're not always politically stable but that has less to do with the idea of coalitions than with the power-hungry egomaniacs holding the most power within them at times.
 
I do not thing there is any correlation that countries with coalition's are better or that countries with strong 2 party system are worse.

Now we can bring up arguments all we want about certain countries.

I think having a govt for 4 years that can solidly carry on its mandate is best.

Coalitions may put more pressure on the governing party but having elections every year?? Having political crises every 6-10 months...
 
I don't know why people think minorities are so bad. Democracy can be messy. But minority governments generally give us more moderate outcomes. The Liberals alienated the west with their majority. And the Conservatives would have returned the favour to the East if they had gotten a majority. At least minorities promote compromise....even if getting there can be messy. Personally, I would like to see more minority and coalition governments in Canada. That would really help reduce regional tensions and some of the animosity our parties have for each other.
 
kEiThZ said:
I don't know why people think minorities are so bad. Democracy can be messy. But minority governments generally give us more moderate outcomes. The Liberals alienated the west with their majority. And the Conservatives would have returned the favour to the East if they had gotten a majority. At least minorities promote compromise....even if getting there can be messy. Personally, I would like to see more minority and coalition governments in Canada. That would really help reduce regional tensions and some of the animosity our parties have for each other.
Click to expand...

Minorities are OK, but minorities+ill conditioned electoral systems (highly sensitive to small changes in popular support) is a bad mix. We have been in a constant state of election posturing for years, because all it would take to have an election is a few strong polls in a row.
 
Yes, but we've all seen what happens when we get strong majorities in this country.

Their heads swell, their egos grow to the size of an elephant's arse and we're left with a power-drunken bunch of sods walking all over us and the decency they're supposed to at least try to embody.

I'm young-ish so my recollection of politics goes only about as far back as the federal election of 1993 but I know I sure as hell cannot stand to deal with another arrogant ten year oligarchy like we had from 1993-2003. Please don't see this as an inherent bias against the LPC....it's just the way I see it. I'd be just as displeased with any other party running things the way they were then.

These sorts of strong majorities are not politically nor socially healthy. Though, I do admit, they are economically brilliant for the most part....or at least can be.

When you have the broadest number of people represented in government and legislation, you are left with a much more fair and equal representation of democracy than when you have the old Canadian 40% "majority" running roughshod over the considerations of the actual majority of the citizenry.

I'm sorry, but simple mathematics do not lie.


Stability's nice and all but what's nicer is fairness and a higher standard of equal consideration and voice.


But I will admit: I guess I'm a bit of a nerd (I did go to Carleton for poli sci for two years) but I love elections. They get me excited and happy....though no outcome I ever hope for comes to pass.
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem with the Liberal hegemony of the time you mention was not just due to a majority government, it was also due to the total 'collapse' of the opposition. This was not simply a majority dynamic but one of a single party dynamic.
 
I would imagine if one party gets a majority now, the opposition party would be much more stronger and vocal.

I rather have majorities.

Imo all you guys are talking about the ideals and ignoring the reality that our minority govt's are today.
 
Lordmandeep, I agree that majorities are more productive, for good or bad. The term isn't really that long to cause that much damage and the next party in power pretty much reverses everything anyway, so maybe it's a good idea to have this pendulum swinging back and forth rather than sitting still?
 
If we look at Ontario's majority government, it's easy to see that McGuinty's position has allowed him to do a lot of things that probably wouldn't be possible in a minority context. Especially the tax reforms that he is bringing in now. Many conservatives (not Conservatives) should be happy with the changes, it's not clear to me how they are receiving it. Of course if it were left to the NDP/PC to support the change, there is no way in hell it would happen. Honestly, this past budget has really helped my view of McGuinty. If only he would do more about getting spending under control, primarily though health care reform.
 
It should be noted, also, that coalitions can also represent majorities....just more fairly and evenly than single-party majorities.

Frankly, single-party majorities frighten me....but then, I've always hated authority so I may have an irrational fear of control and power.
 
I do not see whats so wrong with one party having power for 4 years???

Even if such Parties act in a stupid way they in the end face an embarrassing or crushing defeat.

Coalitions and such cannot work due to our electoral system. It would make these governments fragile. Plus having a coalition of Ndp'ers and Block members is something I think we should avoid.


However I don't want the electoral system to change because I hate the NDP... Rather Selfish of me, but :D...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top