[CDN_PATRIOT]

ErikFG ErikFG:

Call me crazy but I have absolutely no problem with a coalition government.

Anything is better than the conservatives.

Crazy is an understatement. I prefer to use the term 'delusional' on you.

-J.

[ErikFG]

Yeah, god forbid we had competent folks in charge again.

Though you're probably worried about bigger things, like prisons to deal with that huge increase in unreported crime.

[Hawkes]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Okay so let me get this straight.

If the Conservatives fail to get a majority but win the most seats, Iggy with less seats and his Liberals can claim that the Conservatives have lost the confidence of the House and have the Governor General replace the Conservatives with them instead?

And how is that democratic? It sounds more like the Bolsheviks manouvers to bypass the Duma and take over Russia than something a democratic country would condone.

It also sounds correct. The GG can ask thr Libs to try and form a government if the CPC loses the confidence of the house. Try is the operative word here.

It is democratic because it is our system of parliamentary law. They would have to have the confidence of the House just as much as the Conservatives to get anything done.

Without a Coalition, they wouldn't last long either. Also, is there anything that says the Governor General has to give them a try?

[rawmeat]

raydan raydan:

Funny that nobody talks about the fact that Harper could form a coalition government too, if he wins without a majority. Would he want to and would any other party get on board, is another question.

With his quotes in this election I would say no way. If he did I would not vote conservative again untill he is gone. On that note I hope he does not.

I know that my 77 year old Dad who has voted conservative all his life untill the last election will not vote conservative again untill he is gone due to the income trust. I think alot of seniors are still pissed over the income trust.

[RUEZ]

You remember the bitching we heard when left wingers claimed that the majority did not vote for the Conservatives? Well imagine the bitching you are going to here if the Conservatives win the most seats and the Libs try to govern anyway.

[ShepherdsDog]

So the way this works is that someone who votes for the NDP is really voting for the Liberals? It's not a vote against the Conservatives, it's a vote against the Liberals and the Conservatives. If people are so dead set against the CPC they have a choice to pick a party they think will defeat them at the ballot box. Voting isn't something where you later say,'this is what I really meant', after the fact.

[ErikFG]

Ugh.

If 30% of people vote Liberal and 30% of people vote NDP and 40% of people vote CPC, the 60% of people who vote Liberal and NDP, together, provided both can agree on how to run a government to the mutual benefit of both parties and their supporters (ie, if they have a lot in common, just like the libs and NDP) can run a government.

Welcome to Canada.

People who think a coalition government is anti-democratic don't know where they live or how their government works.

[RUEZ]

Ugh,

[ShepherdsDog]

well in a riding that means that the party with 40% wins the seat. The 60% of the constituents that voted against the candidate don't get to rethink their vote.

[ErikFG]

Nope. They just get the consolation prize of having their vote count for funding towards the party they voted for.

Unless Harper manages to take that way too, in his transparently self serving manner.

[RUEZ]

ErikFG ErikFG:

Nope. They just get the consolation prize of having their vote count for funding towards the party they voted for.

Unless Harper manages to take that way too, in his transparently self serving manner.

I think it's an excellent idea, and he's putting right out there for Canadians to vote on. You are free to vote for a system that uses tax payers dollars to support political parties.

[ErikFG]

And I'll continue to do so. And if he manages to strip public party funding, I'll vote my legal maximum every year against the conservatives in response.

Given the real costs of running a government, I don't think $2 a vote in funding for political parties to ensure that poor people get their say as much as rich folks is too much to ask. Certainly better than the situation we see down south where corporations are now 'people' as far as political campaigning is concerned.

Harper would feel the same way, if the CPC didn't happen to be the party to benefit from stripping public party funding. But then again, he objected to the senatorial system before appointing more senators than any government in our history and abandoning the electoral senate plan. Harper's no idiot. He's just transparently self serving.

[ShepherdsDog]

Parties should only be funded by their members, not from government coffers.

[ErikFG]

Health care should be funded by people who need health care, not government coffers.

You can take that foolish argument as far as you want it to, and it remains foolish all the way through.

Sorry, government is about how to best run a country, not how to best run a country according to those who can pay for the biggest say. It's a shame Canadians seem to be forgetting that.

[RUEZ]

ErikFG ErikFG:

Harper would feel the same way, if the CPC didn't happen to be the party to benefit from stripping public party funding. But then again, he objected to the senatorial system before appointing more senators than any government in our history and abandoning the electoral senate plan. Harper's no idiot. He's just transparently self serving.

Isn't it fun to blame the Conservatives for things that the other parties wouldn't allow to happen?