Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[Ekiqa]

I'm disappointed at the GG proroguing parliament. I can't say the idea of a coalition government inspires me with the utmost confidence, but I'd rather see it tried than live with more of the Conservative Party drivel with Stephen Harper at the helm. In the meantime, the GG gave the thumbs up for Harper to avoid a DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN PARLIAMENT. I do not think it is appropriate and am completely unsurprised that Harper wanted it this way (at least since his bungle which encouraged the Liberals and NDP to formally plan for a coalition to topple his goverment).

I think we've got an absolute idiot in as the GG. She fell for Harper, and dissolved Parliament when it was out of session and he had not lost the confidence, thereby violating the law.

And she's done it again. Even after a former GG said that she should allow Parliament to run.

[SCRawl]

Nevertheless, I don't see the similarity between your example of two parties voting together on a bill that they both want passed, and two parties signing an agreement to merge their vote count after the election has already passed so they can form the federal government and install Bloc Quebecois and NDP party members into the Senate.

This last part is nothing more than blatant speculation, and it's been refuted by people in a position to know better.

I am troubled, though, by the scuttlebutt that Quebec will be getting an extra billion dollars in transfer payments from the deal. This is apparently money that was due to be slashed in the near future, thanks to a new funding formula from Ottawa -- perhaps a punishment to Quebecers for not voting Conservative in October. If this turns out to be true, then I'll be disappointed, but not really surprised: after all, we all knew that the BQ had to have some reason for agreeing.

[SCRawl]

I'm disappointed at the GG proroguing parliament. I can't say the idea of a coalition government inspires me with the utmost confidence, but I'd rather see it tried than live with more of the Conservative Party drivel with Stephen Harper at the helm. In the meantime, the GG gave the thumbs up for Harper to avoid a DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN PARLIAMENT. I do not think it is appropriate and am completely unsurprised that Harper wanted it this way (at least since his bungle which encouraged the Liberals and NDP to formally plan for a coalition to topple his goverment).

I think we've got an absolute idiot in as the GG. She fell for Harper, and dissolved Parliament when it was out of session and he had not lost the confidence, thereby violating the law.

And she's done it again. Even after a former GG said that she should allow Parliament to run.

It's easy to call the plays when you're not in the game.

I'd rather have an end to all of the suspense too, but the fact is that the sitting PM asked for it, and it's not a completely unreasonable request. I'd rather our PM be calling the shots (within limits) than the GG, whose role in the governance of this country should be little more than ceremonial.

[Artemas]

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering.

From what I've read, Scotland and the Canadian provinces are actually pretty comparable in regards to amount of power that is available to them. I think that perhaps the largest difference is that most Canadian Provinces do not use the bulk of their constitutional powers, with the exception of Quebec.
In regards to protecting customs and heritage, Quebec already has laws to that extent. In order for them to further protect their heritage, they would have to seriously restrict immigration and draft new laws bordering on the fascistic (see France and immigration, or Belgian language laws). Some Quebecois will point out that the francophone communities in other parts of the country are no longer existent, having moved to Quebec, or having been assimilated into the local culture. But that is a natural part of existance in a evolving society. Besides, there are plenty of minority groups that still maintain their religion, language, and customs. The difference is that those groups are not so inundated with fear of the different-language speaking majority.

I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Quebec seperatists are already pretty much a lunatic fringe. Most Quebecois are moderates, who merely consider themselves to be mildly superior to everybody else. The reason that most seperatist parties get so much support is that the moderates view them as parties that are willing to look after Quebec first, instead of Canada as a whole. And everybody wants to have a friend up top whom considers you to be a top priority, whether you deserve it or not.

The Alberta seperatists are mostly just wanting Alberta to exercise the same degree of power that Quebec does. These people are mostly just angry that they donate more money proportional to their population than anybody else, at the same time that Quebec gobbles up so much and yet has so much power. But already the dangers of having a region-centric political party is starting to rear its ugly head. Now people (like Albertan seperatists) are realizing that the only people that are going to look out for number 1 are themselves. If an accord is not reached bringing Quebec back into the fold, and limiting the, so far, venal attitude that the Bloc has, then parties will begin to move ever more towards regional affiliation than they already are.

[Ekiqa]

It's easy to call the plays when you're not in the game.

I'd rather have an end to all of the suspense too, but the fact is that the sitting PM asked for it, and it's not a completely unreasonable request. I'd rather our PM be calling the shots (within limits) than the GG, whose role in the governance of this country should be little more than ceremonial.

We now have no Parliament. The parliamentary session has been ended, and Harper has basically voided the will of Parliament and the people. We will be governed only by Harper and his cronies. We might not have a Parliament until next December, now.

[Ryan Thunder]

This last part is nothing more than blatant speculation, and it's been refuted by people in a position to know better.

Good. Well, that covers any issues I had with this.

[TheKwas]

Nevertheless, I don't see the similarity between your example of two parties voting together on a bill that they both want passed, and two parties signing an agreement to merge their vote count after the election has already passed so they can form the federal government and install Bloc Quebecois and NDP party members into the Senate.

In one case, they're working together because they happen to agree on an issue. In the other case, they're forming their own party with its own platform and its own stance on issues. If they aren't going to be united on platform issues, why are they acting as a single party?

They are signing an agreement to WORK TOGEATHER on certain economic issues. It's exactly the same, except for they will form cabinet (or, atleast the NDP and Liberals will, not the Bloc) to more effectively address these issues (meaning they can introduce money bills, which they can't while in opposition). Using your own words, "they're working together because they happen to agree on an issue": The economy. The Bloc has only agreed to support the coalition on matters of confidence, meaning that they can still vote against the coalition whenever their ideals do not line up with the Liberals/NDP on matters of non-confidence. All parties

Furthermore, they're not acting as a single party. All parties will still caucus separately most of the time. They are acting like separate parties working together in a coalition government? Do you know ANYTHING about coalition governments and how they work around the world?

It's easy to call the plays when you're not in the game.

I'd rather have an end to all of the suspense too, but the fact is that the sitting PM asked for it, and it's not a completely unreasonable request. I'd rather our PM be calling the shots (within limits) than the GG, whose role in the governance of this country should be little more than ceremonial.

Also, although many believe that it's an unethical move by the PM, there is real debate among constitutional scholars on whether or not the GG should have granted prorogue. I've been led to believe that the GG actually took route that most believe to be more constitutional (there's no precedent of the GG denying Prorogue because of vote-avoiding, despite the fact that prorogue was never intended to be a tool in avoiding collapse). I hate it and still consider it an unethical move by the PM, but the GG was probably in the right.

At any rate, there is no denying that the Conservatives have now used every dirty political move in the book that they used to hate the Liberals for, plus more. The Reform leftovers, if they don't have collective amnesia, should be feeling very dirty and hypocritical right now.

). Some Quebecois will point out that the francophone communities in other parts of the country are no longer existent, having moved to Quebec, or having been assimilated into the local culture. But that is a natural part of existance in a evolving society. Besides, there are plenty of minority groups that still maintain their religion, language, and customs. The difference is that those groups are not so inundated with fear of the different-language speaking majority.

Mostly because these other groups are immigrant groups that are well aware of the fact their language is expected to die out and their children to learn english, and came to this country with this knowledge beforehand. The Francophones consider themselves co-founders of Canada, and do not view themselves as being in the same situation of immigrant groups (the French also have a hard on for their language that the English simply have a hard time understanding due to cultural reasons). Native groups are generally in the same position as the Quebecois and also resent the assimilation of their language and customs by the English majority, they are just generally less successful at defending their language because of their small numbers and lack of a powerful regional government (with the exception of the Inuit with Nunavut, of course, but then again Inuktitut is the most survivable aboriginal language in Canada and is an official language of the territories).

Quebec seperatists are already pretty much a lunatic fringe. Most Quebecois are moderates, who merely consider themselves to be mildly superior to everybody else. The reason that most seperatist parties get so much support is that the moderates view them as parties that are willing to look after Quebec first, instead of Canada as a whole. And everybody wants to have a friend up top whom considers you to be a top priority, whether you deserve it or not.

Support for moving towards soverignity tends to float around 30 to 45 percent in recent years. That's not really lunatic fringe. Plain old fringe, perhaps.

But already the dangers of having a region-centric political party is starting to rear its ugly head. Now people (like Albertan seperatists) are realizing that the only people that are going to look out for number 1 are themselves. If an accord is not reached bringing Quebec back into the fold, and limiting the, so far, venal attitude that the Bloc has, then parties will begin to move ever more towards regional affiliation than they already are.

Would anyone have an objection to Quebec becoming Canada's Scotland, really? That is what I'm wondering.

From what I've read, Scotland and the Canadian provinces are actually pretty comparable in regards to amount of power that is available to them. I think that perhaps the largest difference is that most Canadian Provinces do not use the bulk of their constitutional powers, with the exception of Quebec.
In regards to protecting customs and heritage, Quebec already has laws to that extent. In order for them to further protect their heritage, they would have to seriously restrict immigration and draft new laws bordering on the fascistic (see France and immigration, or Belgian language laws). Some Quebecois will point out that the francophone communities in other parts of the country are no longer existent, having moved to Quebec, or having been assimilated into the local culture. But that is a natural part of existance in a evolving society. Besides, there are plenty of minority groups that still maintain their religion, language, and customs. The difference is that those groups are not so inundated with fear of the different-language speaking majority.

I mean, it would pretty much reduce separatism down to a lunatic fringe, I'd think.

Quebec seperatists are already pretty much a lunatic fringe. Most Quebecois are moderates, who merely consider themselves to be mildly superior to everybody else. The reason that most seperatist parties get so much support is that the moderates view them as parties that are willing to look after Quebec first, instead of Canada as a whole. And everybody wants to have a friend up top whom considers you to be a top priority, whether you deserve it or not.

The Alberta seperatists are mostly just wanting Alberta to exercise the same degree of power that Quebec does. These people are mostly just angry that they donate more money proportional to their population than anybody else, at the same time that Quebec gobbles up so much and yet has so much power. But already the dangers of having a region-centric political party is starting to rear its ugly head. Now people (like Albertan seperatists) are realizing that the only people that are going to look out for number 1 are themselves. If an accord is not reached bringing Quebec back into the fold, and limiting the, so far, venal attitude that the Bloc has, then parties will begin to move ever more towards regional affiliation than they already are.

I doubt it. I think that most Westerners still see the mostly-Reform-leftover Conservative Party as their own regional party, and are more than happy to use them to acheive a good deal for themselves.

[SCRawl]

It's easy to call the plays when you're not in the game.

I'd rather have an end to all of the suspense too, but the fact is that the sitting PM asked for it, and it's not a completely unreasonable request. I'd rather our PM be calling the shots (within limits) than the GG, whose role in the governance of this country should be little more than ceremonial.

We now have no Parliament. The parliamentary session has been ended, and Harper has basically voided the will of Parliament and the people. We will be governed only by Harper and his cronies. We might not have a Parliament until next December, now.

I'm not saying that I'm in favour of Harper's actions, but that I'd rather they be dictated by him (or the one who holds his office) than by someone who has no accountability. I think that it's pointless -- or perhaps slightly worse than pointless -- to delay this inevitability, but it's still his call.

If there's some sort of calamity that requires that Parliament sit again, you can bet that all parties will put off a confidence vote in order to get something done. I have at least that much faith in my elected officials.

[Artemas]

We now have no Parliament. The parliamentary session has been ended, and Harper has basically voided the will of Parliament and the people. We will be governed only by Harper and his cronies. We might not have a Parliament until next December, now.

And we might have a parliament by the end of January 2009. The GG prorogued Parliement, and she could just as well dismiss Harper if he doesn't want to call parliament again. I think "voiding the will of the people" is a bit silly though. The people really have had nothing to do with this current political crisis, and invoking their name so as to appear more rightious than ones opponent is silly.

[Artemas]

Mostly because these other groups are immigrant groups that are well aware of the fact their language is expected to die out and their children to learn english, and came to this country with this knowledge beforehand.

Except that there are 3rd or 4th generation immigrants that still speak their grandparents language, practice their religion, and continue their customs.

the French also have a hard on for their language that the English simply have a hard time understanding due to cultural reasons.

Often this is just a statement of veiled ethnocentrism

It is true that Francophones were partners in the founding of Canada, and anglophones believe that Quebec enjoys just as much power (if not more) than they deserve. Obviously there is some slight disagreement on this matter.

But regardless, Quebeckers do exercise a great deal of power, and they can do so without have a province-centric political party. Think, the prime ministers that came from Quebec outnumber all of the prime ministers that came from other provinces combined.
They represent a quarter of the population, and thus a quarter of the votes.
There aren't alot of measures that can be taken to further safeguard Quebec language and heritage that hasn't already been done. As I said before, there is restricting immigration, or ridiculously harsh language laws. And neither of these methods seem to be alleviating the respective problems in France or Belgium.

Support for moving towards soverignity tends to float around 30 to 45 percent in recent years. That's not really lunatic fringe. Plain old fringe, perhaps

I find it hard to believe that 45% of Quebec are really, seperatists, especially now. But 30% sounds far more reasonable. Really depends on the moderates and if they think their interests are worth calling them Sovereignists. (spelling?)

I doubt it. I think that most Westerners still see the mostly-Reform-leftover Conservative Party as their own regional party, and are more than happy to use them to acheive a good deal for themselves.

Um, you just quoted my entire post. What part do you doubt?
It is true that after the PC party fell apart in the early 90s, that reform, and then alliance were primarily western oriented. But the current conservative party, like the old PCs in the 80s are actually a fully national party, with seats in most of the provinces. The reform and alliance were interim conservative parties, forced to pander to their power base to grow. Westerners are only falling for parties that pander to them because they see it as the only way to get ahead, and hey, Quebec is already doing it and look what it did for them!
I think that any region-centric political party is bad for the country, and Quebec supporting the Bloc just increases the likelyhood that more and even stronger local-oriented power blocs will arise elsewhere.


As far as the current political crisis goes, I think that a coalition between the NDP, Bloc and Liberals will just sabatoge themselves at the next election. Far better to let the conservatives carry on for now, and see what is in the budget come January.

[Next of Kin]

I love how the Conservative douchebags are playing up the seperatist nonsense. It would make one think that the Bloc will be given extra powers when nothing could be further from the truth. The Bloc will simply align their voting with the NDP and Liberal faction until 2010 and then they're on their own. Of course, the conservatives are using a neo-con tactic displayed by Bush when he repeatedly mentioned 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath. A visit to the conservatives web site shows that even Jacques Parizeau endorses the coalition.

[Ryan Thunder]

They are signing an agreement to WORK TOGEATHER on certain economic issues. It's exactly the same, except for they will form cabinet (or, atleast the NDP and Liberals will, not the Bloc) to more effectively address these issues (meaning they can introduce money bills, which they can't while in opposition). Using your own words, "they're working together because they happen to agree on an issue": The economy.

That doesn't make them effectively the same party, however, which is what they'd have to do if they wanted someone like myself to see them as legitimate.

The Bloc has only agreed to support the coalition on matters of confidence, meaning that they can still vote against the coalition whenever their ideals do not line up with the Liberals/NDP on matters of non-confidence.

I'd like to point out that this would probably give the Bloc an unreasonable amount of influence, since they can shoot down bills where the Coalition and the Conservatives disagree.

I don't like that, since they're a federal-level party with mostly provincial-level interests.

Furthermore, they're not acting as a single party. All parties will still caucus separately most of the time. They are acting like separate parties working together in a coalition government?

If they're not acting as a single party, then they shouldn't be pooling their votes.

[TheKwas]

Mostly because these other groups are immigrant groups that are well aware of the fact their language is expected to die out and their children to learn english, and came to this country with this knowledge beforehand.

Except that there are 3rd or 4th generation immigrants that still speak their grandparents language, practice their religion, and continue their customs.

Do you actually know a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant that speaks their ancestral language better than English/french? Or even uses that language in most of their interactions in life? I don't.

Perhaps a few examples exist, but the comparison is still completely invalid. The French don't WANT to be reduced to yet another minority group that have to learn English (many of them will learn english all the same, but they want to be able to conduct their lives entirely in french if they need to). They don't want to be viewed as yet another minority group that is expected to leave their language and culture at home once they enter the business or social world. These aren't petty complaints either, they are a founding people of this nation.

Often this is just a statement of veiled ethnocentrism

Not necessarily. It's just a difference in how they approach language. In English culture, if you make a grammar mistake I can point it out politely and you will thank me for the correction. In French culture, to point out someone's grammatical error is taken as much more insulting, even when done politely, as linguistic ability is much more tied to self-worth in their culture. I'm sure many people here have heard stories about how the Parisian french are notoriously arrogant about how other people speak french (I can't remember how many times I've heard stories about Parisians "pretending" to not understand foreigners when they try to speak french). That phenomenon is a result of the same cultural values.

Given the tolerance that 'netspeak' is granted in English culture, I kinda wish Anglophones were more protective of their language, and I don't think such sentiments are necessarily ethnocentric at all.

Of course, there are some french people that look down the English language as ugly, monotone, and annoying to listen to, but considering how many of them still learn English I don't think that such sentiments are much more prominent than the tendencies of English Canadians to look down at french.

Even still, I consider the Nordic languages absolutely beautiful and musical to listen to, despite only knowing odd phrases of Icelandic. I don't think such a statement is ethnocentric in the slightest. It's linguistic fact that French is structured in a way that is more 'musical' and 'rhythmic', so even if many Francophones viewed French as a better language to listen to, they aren't necessarily being ethnocentric.

But regardless, Quebecers do exercise a great deal of power, and they can do so without have a province-centric political party. Think, the prime ministers that came from Quebec outnumber all of the prime ministers that came from other provinces combined.
They represent a quarter of the population, and thus a quarter of the votes.
There aren't a lot of measures that can be taken to further safeguard Quebec language and heritage that hasn't already been done. As I said before, there is restricting immigration, or ridiculously harsh language laws. And neither of these methods seem to be alleviating the respective problems in France or Belgium.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a separatist (I don't even live in Quebec). In Fact, I'm strongly against separatism for the simple fact that I have close ties to the Franco-Ontarian community and they will be the ones to suffer most with an independent Quebec. I'm just trying to given an accurate, fair-handed assessment of how separatists think, rather than just name-calling them traitors and whiners as many in English Canada do (being a native of Saskatchewan, I'm well aware of just how ignorant most Westerners are of Quebecois culture).

Um, you just quoted my entire post. What part do you doubt?

Sorry, I meant to say that I doubt that western regional parties will rear their ugly heads to any significant extent. There is a belief in Western Canada that, despite the expansion of the Conservative Party, it still has Western interests in mind and won't abandon the current Albertan ideology.

The only place where regional politics are likely to strength is in Quebec, which feels more or less insulted by how the Bloc were demonized by Harper and English Canada. There was a poll just yesterday illustrating just how different Francophone and Anglophone views of the Bloc were, where even moderate Quebecers had next to no concern with the Bloc propping up a coalition, while 70%+ of English Canadians showed either great or significant concern with the Bloc supporting a coalition.

As far as the current political crisis goes, I think that a coalition between the NDP, Bloc and Liberals will just sabatoge themselves at the next election. Far better to let the conservatives carry on for now, and see what is in the budget come January.

Given the backlash that some polls are currently showing, I agree. I would also support moving the Liberal leadership race up and hurry it through so that any future attempts by harper to make life hard can be deflected by someone other than Dion.



Ryan Thunder:

That doesn't make them effectively the same party, however, which is what they'd have to do if they wanted someone like myself to see them as legitimate.

Are you dense? No it doesn't. I already explained why it doesn't and you haven't even bothered to address my point at all. Parties will always work cooperatively on issues they agree on, and that's all that is occurring now, except they want to cooperate from a position where they can introduce money bills.

If they're not acting as a single party, then they shouldn't be pooling their votes.

You're as stupid as a mule. Promoting right-wing talking points once is forgivable. Repeating the same misinformation, despite having the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy explained to you by numerous posters along with examples from other countries to look at for comparison, is fucktarded and borderline trolling.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thank you, Kwas, for your explanations of some of the issues at hand. As it currently stands we intend to settle our family in Montreal for the sake of not merely the European city-culture but also the immense technological development of the city that remains the leader in Canadian industry. To that end I'm fairly committed to respectfully learning French and conducting all my daily affairs in it; I don't find anything else appropriate or decent in that beautiful metropolis that I fell in love with the very moment I first arrived.

[TheKwas]

No problem. Montreal is a really beautiful city, and I myself may move there in the distant future. As it is, I'm just next door in Ottawa so I visit often.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan Thunder:

That doesn't make them effectively the same party, however, which is what they'd have to do if they wanted someone like myself to see them as legitimate.

Are you dense? No it doesn't. I already explained why it doesn't and you haven't even bothered to address my point at all. Parties will always work cooperatively on issues they agree on, and that's all that is occurring now, except they want to cooperate from a position where they can introduce money bills.

If they're not acting as a single party, then they shouldn't be pooling their votes.

Promoting right-wing talking points once is forgivable. Repeating the same misinformation, despite having the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy explained to you by numerous posters along with examples from other countries to look at for comparison, is fucktarded and borderline trolling.

I believe I already explained that at this point, this was merely my opinion of the matter. Nothing more. How I understood it to work (and what I was quite comfortable with, thank you) is obviously not how it works, and that being the case, I make no further argument that this is somehow illegal, because it obviously isn't.

That said, I don't like it, even though I did vote Liberal. I didn't elect my representative to get in bed with the NDP.

[Next of Kin]

Meh, in politics you may have different political parties working together for some cause. Before you turn into a Harper conservative realize that he was willing to work with the NDP and the Bloc to take down the Liberals.

[Ryan Thunder]

Meh, in politics you may have different political parties working together for some cause. Before you turn into a Harper conservative

Been there, done that. Not going back any time in the forseeable future.

realize that he was willing to work with the NDP and the Bloc to take down the Liberals.

He didn't have to pool votes with different parties to form a government; more people voted for the CPC than did for the NDP, the Liberals, or the Bloc, which put them in office. Nothing has changed since then, so even if I didn't vote for them, I see no reason why they should not remain in office.

But at this point I'm cluttering the thread. So, I'll shut up now.

[Graeme Dice]

That said, I don't like it, even though I did vote Liberal. I didn't elect my representative to get in bed with the NDP.

You voted Liberal, but you'd rather see the conservatives in control of Canada. This is a truly bizarre situation.

[Ryan Thunder]

That said, I don't like it, even though I did vote Liberal. I didn't elect my representative to get in bed with the NDP.

You voted Liberal, but you'd rather see the conservatives in control of Canada. This is a truly bizarre situation.

It's not that I'd rather have them in power (though I realize that would be a consequence of what I want.) I believe the manner in which the coalition is taking office doesn't make sense in a system where the political party with the most votes is put in charge.

I voted Liberal because my representative has done a good job thus far, and happens to be a Liberal. I'd vote Conservative if he was Conservative. Now if he were NDP I might have reservations, but I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him then, too...

[aerius]

It's not that I'd rather have them in power (though I realize that would be a consequence of what I want.) I believe the manner in which the coalition is taking office doesn't make sense in a system where the political party with the most votes is put in charge.

It's already been explained to you many times that what you believe ISN'T WHAT IS. There's no law which states that the party with the most votes is automatically in charge in a minority government. None. It's simply a tradition where they are allowed the priviledge of choosing another party to ally with and form a majority coalition. It's that fucking simple and you still don't get it.

There is nothing in our constitution which forbids the other parties from forming a majority coalition of their own and ousting the party which has the most minority seats. Get that through your fucking head.

[ray245]

I really think that the British parliamentary system needs to be reworked some how. There needs to be a seperation of responsibility between the local repsentives and the national level representives.

Although Ryan, you have to realise that in every democracy or election, we are basically voting for a representive democracy. He represent our views in a indirect manner. We grant him the power to conduct political manauvering in the parliament.

Basically what you hope for is a direct democracy right?

[Ekiqa]

It is actually legal for the Prime Minister to stay in office if his party is defeated. In that case, the GG has to step in and remove him.

Ithas happened at least twice, the second of which was the cause of the King-Byng Affair, in which King refused to step down after being defeated, and in fact tried to get the GG to dissolve Parliament while a censure motion was being passed.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>

And you call me dense. I've already made it abundantly clear that this is how I would prefer it to be and not how it is.

I really think that the British parliamentary system needs to be reworked some how. There needs to be a seperation of responsibility between the local repsentives and the national level representives.

Although Ryan, you have to realise that in every democracy or election, we are basically voting for a representive democracy. He represent our views in a indirect manner. We grant him the power to conduct political manauvering in the parliament.

Basically what you hope for is a direct democracy right?

I would prefer a parliamentary system where there are no political blocks of representatives (political parties), where each representative would vote as he or she determined would be best for his or her region.

There would be no prime minister in such a system, or any other head of state, for that matter. Everything would be proposed by the parliament and voted on by the parliament. There might be a democratically-elected senate of sorts, which would have a member for each province, that would review bills passed by the House of Commons, and hold a second vote on those bills that would send them back to the Commons if it doesn't pass.

However, establishing such a system is but wishful thinking.

[TheKwas]

<snip>

And you call me dense. I've already made it abundantly clear that this is how I would prefer it to be and not how it is.

First off, I called you dense and I'm not aerius.

Secondly, you said:

I believe the manner in which the coalition is taking office doesn't make sense in a system where the political party with the most votes is put in charge.

So, you effectively said: "In our system, this coalition doesn't make sense", which is more than just stating a partisan opinion (an example of that would be "I don't like the NDP and Liberals working togeather because I hate the NDP more than I hate the Conservatives"), it's an interpretation of our democratic system which is simply incorrect any way you slice it. The fact that your still toeing your way around this misinterpretation just further illustrates the fact you're extremely dense.