ELECTION DAY CANADA - Conservative Majority

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yeah Canada is pretty backward when it comes to that.. almost all the first world nations allow you to execerise a decent level of gun ownership.

lordreaven

I remember feeling so oppressed when I couldn't get a gun in Canada. :(

Ilium, of course.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I remember feeling so oppressed when I couldn't get a gun in Canada. :(

GabuEx

Ilium, of course.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Maybe if you were interested in acquiring a firearm you would feel oppressed. I don't feel oppressed by current anti-gay laws but that doesn't mean others don't.

Espada12

If I were interested in acquiring a firearm I would go through the procedure for getting one.

I think I speak for basically every Canadian when I say that we find America's preoccupation with guns to be a little strange.

What about finland, Sweden, Austria or Switzerland? They all have extremely high rates of gun ownership but no one seems to speak ill of that. They always speak ill of American gun ownership though..

Its not American gun ownership. It is the American gun culture. There is a world of difference between Switzerland and America wrt gun culture.

And there is no restriction on the average Canadian buying any number of different rifles, shotguns, etc. Fill out the paperwork, pay your fees, wait till your acquistion certificate arrives. Then follow the rules on storage and transport. It is no more difficult than vehicle permits, health cards, etc.

The only real restrictions we have are around handguns. If you want to own a basic rifle, you can. Most Canadians don't want to own one. It is not about rules, laws, rights, Constitutions, or anything else. The difference is culture. For instance, the fairly common American notion of needing a gun to protect yourself from criminals is absurd to most Canadians. This is because the guns for self defence argument is meaningless if you don't live in fear of crime and criminals in the first place.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Maybe if you were interested in acquiring a firearm you would feel oppressed. I don't feel oppressed by current anti-gay laws but that doesn't mean others don't.

Espada12

If I were interested in acquiring a firearm I would go through the procedure for getting one.

I think I speak for basically every Canadian when I say that we find America's preoccupation with guns to be a little strange.

What about finland, Sweden, Austria or Switzerland? They all have extremely high rates of gun ownership but no one seems to speak ill of that. They always speak ill of American gun ownership though..

Citizens in those countries generally don't rave about gun ownership as a sacrosanct right on par with free speech and democratic elections. I swear, some Americans make me get the sense that they consider firearms part of the Trinity.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I remember feeling so oppressed when I couldn't get a gun in Canada. :(

Ilium, of course.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] Where are you know? US? Germany? Mars?lordreaven

Ilium, of course.

What did I ever do to deserve that fate? :(

Its not American gun ownership. It is the American gun culture. There is a world of difference between Switzerland and America wrt gun culture.

And there is no restriction on the average Canadian buying any number of different rifles, shotguns, etc. Fill out the paperwork, pay your fees, wait till your acquistion certificate arrives. Then follow the rules on storage and transport. It is no more difficult than vehicle permits, health cards, etc.

The only real restrictions we have are around handguns. If you want to own a basic rifle, you can. Most Canadians don't want to own one. It is not about rules, laws, rights, Constitutions, or anything else. The difference is culture. For instance, the fairly common American notion of needing a gun to protect yourself from criminals is absurd to most Canadians. This is because the guns for self defence argument is meaningless if you don't live in fear of crime and criminals in the first place.

SUD123456

What's the difference between the swiss and americans? The swiss have a high amount of gun ownership FOR PROTECTION from foreign enemies.

Citizens in those countries generally don't rave about gun ownership as a sacrosanct right on par with free speech and democratic elections. I swear, some Americans make me get the sense that they consider firearms part of the Trinity.

GabuEx

I see nothing wrong with them considering their gun ownership is as equally important as free speech and democratic elections. Because others may not place an importance on it .. or in their OPINION is not as important doesn't mean it truly isn't.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Its not American gun ownership. It is the American gun culture. There is a world of difference between Switzerland and America wrt gun culture.

And there is no restriction on the average Canadian buying any number of different rifles, shotguns, etc. Fill out the paperwork, pay your fees, wait till your acquistion certificate arrives. Then follow the rules on storage and transport. It is no more difficult than vehicle permits, health cards, etc.

The only real restrictions we have are around handguns. If you want to own a basic rifle, you can. Most Canadians don't want to own one. It is not about rules, laws, rights, Constitutions, or anything else. The difference is culture. For instance, the fairly common American notion of needing a gun to protect yourself from criminals is absurd to most Canadians. This is because the guns for self defence argument is meaningless if you don't live in fear of crime and criminals in the first place.

Espada12

What's the difference between the swiss and americans? The swiss have a high amount of gun ownership FOR PROTECTION from foreign enemies.

Income inequality; larger social differences.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Ilium, of course.

What did I ever do to deserve that fate? :(

I hope you Canadians don't have as stupid politicians as my country does ;pKagai13

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:

Cons 122

NDP 95

Lib 58

Bloc 19

Green 14

--

Too bad we use FPTP still.

Tylendal

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:

Cons 122

NDP 95

Lib 58

Bloc 19

Green 14

--

Too bad we use FPTP still.

RustedArmor

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="Tylendal"] I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Jean Crowder (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.

GabuEx

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

RustedArmor

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

GabuEx

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

RustedArmor

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

RustedArmor

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

And in proportional representation, 2% of the vote (the same proportion of seats that PEI and the Territories account for) could change history. I'm not seeing your point. That people would not pay attention to PEI or the Territories under proportional representation means nothing. Nobody pays attention to PEI or the Territories today. Nobody would pay attention to PEI or the Territories under any electoral system because they're so electorally tiny as to be irrelevant when one can get bigger prizes.

Here's a counter-point, too. When I was living in Canada, I lived in the riding Saanich-Gulf Islands. Until 2011, the left-wing vote was always split, and Gary Lunn would always win with a minority of the vote. Every time I went to vote, I knew it was absolutely pointless to do so because Gary Lunn was going to win even though a majority of the voters in the riding repeatedly voted for someone else again and again. Explain to me, then, how exactly this caused the people of the riding to be represented adequately when a majority of the voters' votes basically just didn't count for anything whatsoever.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Yet it's worked out quite well for us. Most of the illegal guns here are legally bought guns from the US anyway.Ace6301

It has nothing to do with working out really, it's really a matter of giving people more freedoms.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Maybe if you were interested in acquiring a firearm you would feel oppressed. I don't feel oppressed by current anti-gay laws but that doesn't mean others don't.

Espada12

If I were interested in acquiring a firearm I would go through the procedure for getting one.

I think I speak for basically every Canadian when I say that we find America's preoccupation with guns to be a little strange.

What about finland, Sweden, Austria or Switzerland? They all have extremely high rates of gun ownership but no one seems to speak ill of that. They always speak ill of American gun ownership though..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Citizens in those countries generally don't rave about gun ownership as a sacrosanct right on par with free speech and democratic elections. I swear, some Americans make me get the sense that they consider firearms part of the Trinity.

Espada12

I see nothing wrong with them considering their gun ownership is as equally important as free speech and democratic elections. Because others may not place an importance on it .. or in their OPINION is not as important doesn't mean it truly isn't.

You asked why Canadians think that Americans' preoccupation with guns is weird, and why we don't think the same about other cultures with high levels of gun ownership. I was answering your question.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:

Cons 122

NDP 95

Lib 58

Bloc 19

Green 14

--

Too bad we use FPTP still.

RustedArmor

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Ace6301

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

Conservatives won the single seats in Yukon Territory and Nunavut and one seat in Prince Edward Island. I doubt the Conservatives would do anything that would severely alienate their supporters in any of these ridings. Now some questions. Is proportional representation ethical, considering many Canadians in the smallest Provinces would be effectively voiceless because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that the populations of Ontario and Quebec have? Is proportional representation really effective, considering only the Libs, Bloc, and Greens would gain seats, especially when left wingers are represented by NDPs in the House of Commons already? Is proportional representation accurate, considering that voters in the prairies decide not to sacrifice a few hours salary to vote when they know their riding is going to be a conservative blowout whether they vote or not? Simply put proportional representation doesn't make sense unless voter turnout was 100%.

You have to remember that just because proportional representation would benefit you today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit you 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. On the other hand, I have to remember that just because today's electoral process would benefit me today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit me 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

RustedArmor

Conservatives won the single seats in Yukon Territory and Nunavut and one seat in Prince Edward Island. I doubt the Conservatives would do anything that would severely alienate their supporters in any of these ridings. Now some questions. Is proportional representation ethical, considering many Canadians in the smallest Provinces would be effectively voiceless because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that the populations of Ontario and Quebec have? Is proportional representation really effective, considering only the Libs, Bloc, and Greens would gain seats, especially when left wingers are represented by NDPs in the House of Commons already? Is proportional representation accurate, considering that voters in the prairies decide not to sacrifice a few hours salary to vote when they know their riding is going to be a conservative blowout whether they vote or not? Simply put proportional representation doesn't make sense unless voter turnout was 100%.

RustedArmor

This line of reasoning makes no sense for the simple fact that the smallest provinces are already voiceless for that exact same reason. You keep asserting that proportional representation would somehow silence these provinces, yet they already are utterly ignored for precisely the reasons you're saying they'll be ignored under proportional representation.

You have to remember that just because proportional representation would benefit you today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit you 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. On the other hand, I have to remember that just because today's electoral process would benefit me today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit me 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

RustedArmor

Or, we could enact proportional representation, which would enable people to vote their conscience, knowing that every vote counts, as opposed to tactically, choosing between the lesser of two evils just because they know anything else would be throwing their vote away.

This has nothing to do with what benefits me; this has everything to do with ensuring the government in Parliament actually accurately represents the interests of the people in Canada. When a person or party who only a minority voted for gets elected or gets a majority, that is an utter failure of the democratic process.

Your kidding yourself if you think that their gun laws are as pathetic as America's so called laws.

htekemerald

I'm not.. I've actually read up on these laws and they are no more restrictive than the Americans.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Your kidding yourself if you think that their gun laws are as pathetic as America's so called laws.

Espada12

I'm not.. I've actually read up on these laws and they are no more restrictive than the Americans.

Funny, why is it that Finland has banned citizens from carrying concealed weapons then? Seems the practice is perfectly legal in the states.

(there are about 'n' other differences, where 'n' is a postive integer far greater than zero)

Me thinks your research amounts to little more than reading some right wing rag of a website.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Your kidding yourself if you think that their gun laws are as pathetic as America's so called laws.

htekemerald

I'm not.. I've actually read up on these laws and they are no more restrictive than the Americans.

Funny, why is it that Finland has banned citizens from carrying concealed weapons then? Seems the practice is perfectly legal in the states.

(there are about 'n' other differences, where 'n' is a postive integer far greater than zero)

Me thinks your research amounts to little more than reading some right wing rag of a website.

That requires permits and there are weapon restrictions. In the Czech republic is the same thing as the US and doesn't have much homicides either.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I'm not.. I've actually read up on these laws and they are no more restrictive than the Americans.

Espada12

Funny, why is it that Finland has banned citizens from carrying concealed weapons then? Seems the practice is perfectly legal in the states.

(there are about 'n' other differences, where 'n' is a postive integer far greater than zero)

Me thinks your research amounts to little more than reading some right wing rag of a website.

That requires permits and there are weapon restrictions.

In your example country of Finland the practice is banned outright. (except for police and secuirty forces, but thats expected). UYb

Obviously there are major differences between Finland's gun laws and america's 'gun laws', despite your previous false claim.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

Conservatives won the single seats in Yukon Territory and Nunavut and one seat in Prince Edward Island. I doubt the Conservatives would do anything that would severely alienate their supporters in any of these ridings. Now some questions. Is proportional representation ethical, considering many Canadians in the smallest Provinces would be effectively voiceless because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that the populations of Ontario and Quebec have? Is proportional representation really effective, considering only the Libs, Bloc, and Greens would gain seats, especially when left wingers are represented by NDPs in the House of Commons already? Is proportional representation accurate, considering that voters in the prairies decide not to sacrifice a few hours salary to vote when they know their riding is going to be a conservative blowout whether they vote or not? Simply put proportional representation doesn't make sense unless voter turnout was 100%.

GabuEx

This line of reasoning makes no sense for the simple fact that the smallest provinces are already voiceless for that exact same reason. You keep asserting that proportional representation would somehow silence these provinces, yet they already are utterly ignored for precisely the reasons you're saying they'll be ignored under proportional representation.

You have to remember that just because proportional representation would benefit you today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit you 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. On the other hand, I have to remember that just because today's electoral process would benefit me today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit me 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

RustedArmor

Or, we could enact proportional representation, which would enable people to vote their conscience, knowing that every vote counts, as opposed to tactically, choosing between the lesser of two evils just because they know anything else would be throwing their vote away.

This has nothing to do with what benefits me; this has everything to do with ensuring the government in Parliament actually accurately represents the interests of the people in Canada. When a person or party who only a minority voted for gets elected or gets a majority, that is an utter failure of the democratic process.

Under the current system the territories and Atlantic Canada receive 35 seats in the House of Commons. Under proportional representation they would only receive 22 seats. If the current system leaves these regions of Canada voiceless, then proportional representation leaves them even more insignificant and irrelevent. Look at it this way, if the Consevatives completely ignored Atlantic Canada and the territories and lost every seat there, then the Conservatives would be four seats short of a majority. Basicaly, Conservatives are forced to remain accountable to these provinces and territories if they intend to maintain their majority going into the next election.