Abolish US Electoral College? - Page 2

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:54

That's what already happens, BTW. My riding votes ~90% Liberal, and has for the last 30 years. That means squat to me. It's not taking 3/4 of my vote away from me just because I happen to live in Quebec like the US' system would.

Yes, by the way. I have difficulty thinking "outside my box". I'm like an 8 year-old and haven't figured out that the Golden Rule is the basis for all reasonable ethical systems.

JohnIII · June 16, 2002, 05:57

I agree with Asher

.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:00

Quote:

You openly admit that there are no safeguards at all to protect provinces being assraped under the current system, and you're absolutely okay with this since you live in the 2nd largest province in the country

The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all. It might explain why they've gone from being the most progressive country in the world to reactionary in the space of the last two centuries.

We should have done with it and amalgamate the West into one giant province. Then you could quit your whining about how you live in a small province and are overlooked.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 06:00

Only a Central Canadian could defend Canadian democracy (?) the way a Central Canadian can.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:01

Or even better, we could split Quebec and Ontario into 10 new provinces.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all. It might explain why they've gone from being the most progressive country in the world to reactionary in the space of the last two centuries.

This is a GOOD thing. The government shouldn't act on the impulses of ONE SENILE OLD MAN like Canada does. It's that reason why Canada has $1.50 per CD-R in tariffs or $20 per GB on digital media player that go directly to the record companies. It's a REALLY REALLY DUMB IDEA.

I'd rather have the US' system of checks and balances keep a just system across all states, as well as prevent stupid laws such as the stuff the Liberals are trying to pull (successfully, since they control everything in the government).

Quote:

We should have done with it and amalgamate the West into one giant province. Then you could quit your whining about how you live in a small province and are overlooked.

Yes, because you know Alberta and Manitoba have the same political views. Genius.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only a Central Canadian could defend Canadian democracy (?) the way a Central Canadian can.

I'd never vote for a government that would have me as a supporter.

Or words to that effect.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 06:03

Quote:

Or even better, we could split Quebec and Ontario into 10 new provinces.

That wouldn't matter for the long haul if the PM remains a dictator for 4 year terms.

/Edited to add the quote. Damn I hate these tail chase dog threads.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:04

Quote:

Yes, because you know Alberta and Manitoba have the same political views. Genius

So we divide up provinces according to their political views?

According to that, Quebec needs to be split into at least 2 (maybe three) provinces.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:04

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
That wouldn't matter for the long haul if the PM remains a dictator for 4 year terms.

5 years.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:06

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So we divide up provinces according to their political views?

According to that, Quebec needs to be split into at least 2 (maybe three) provinces.

No, but we don't merge the existing provinces for arbitrary reasons like you want to, especially when you know they have completely different political viewpoints.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 06:06

The secret KH, is balance. Real power to balance the power of the PM. Why are you allergic?

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:07

Asher, you're bootstrapping.

What would be your problem with dividing the big provinces into little ones? We'd be breaking the back of your imaginary giants, and I'd go along with it 100%.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:09

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
The secret KH, is balance. Real power to balance the power of the PM. Why are you allergic?

I could deal with a real Senate, but not one that is simply an excuse to give the 140 000 people of PEI as much say as the 10 000 000 people of Ontario.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher, you're bootstrapping.

What would be your problem with dividing the big provinces into little ones? We'd be breaking the back of your imaginary giants, and I'd go along with it 100%.

Because there's no change in ANYTHING doing that. Those same regions will more or less vote for the same damn party anyway, but they'd simply get MORE senate seats to represent the same geographic region which would completely miss the point of having a balance senate.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:11

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I could deal with a real Senate, but not one that is simply an excuse to give the 140 000 people of PEI as much say as the 10 000 000 people of Ontario.

THE 10,000,000 PEOPLE IN ONTARIO STILL HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE 140,000 PEOPLE IN PEI. BUT THIS WAY, PEI ISN'T ASSRAPED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN ONTARIO!

How many times must we spell this out to you?

The Senate isn't the only political system, you know.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:16

Another way to look at it is this:
The government exists to look after the interest of ALL citizens of that country (or as much as possible, you can't please everyone). It does not simply exist to serve the interests of the majority (if you want to call 40% of the voters a majority

).

There needs to be a way for the minorities to still have a say in how things go in their government, rather than absolute rule by the majority, no matter how slim (or nonexistent it is when taking into account raw votes) that majority is.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:18

So, in other words, you're complaining that 41% of Canadians voted Liberal.

Why should I even listen to when you say stuff like this?

Provinces aren't individuals. They don't have a right to equal representation at the federal level, because they don't all speak for the same number of people.

I would never say yes to any system that would disenfranchise citizens because of where they make their home.

You've complained that the current system is a problem because everybody ignores poor Alberta due to its small size. Now you're saying that even if we broke down the big provinces to Alberta's size, Alberta would still be ignored because it wouldn't vote for the same parties as people in Ontario 1-6 and Quebec 1-4.

It's blatant gerrymandering.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

THE 10,000,000 PEOPLE IN ONTARIO STILL HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE 140,000 PEOPLE IN PEI. BUT THIS WAY, PEI ISN'T ASSRAPED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN ONTARIO!

How many times must we spell this out to you?

The Senate isn't the only political system, you know.

Thank you, Asher. I'm an imbecile, and couldn't understand before, but your smilies and size 8 font have shown me the way...

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:21

Quote:

They don't have a right to equal representation at the federal level, because they don't all speak for the same number of people.

Yeah, no kidding huh? I thought the point of this was we wanted that changed, so provinces have the right to equal representation? Duh?

You don't seem to get it. You ask me why I'm opposed to breaking Ontario up into provinces of Alberta's size and then having an equal number of senators per province. How is that ANY different from how the current House of Representatives work?! It's purely by population!

----------

You're very French for someone who claims to be English, KrazyHorse.

Maybe Quebec is rubbing off on you.

Anyway, this threadjack is really boring since it's everyone vs. a dense Liberal Quebeccer who is happy that the Liberals are dictators in a democracy. Fair enough, you have every right to act like a typical central Canadian from time to time. People like me will join the endless stream of talent flowing down south of the border due to the stupid setup and unfairness of Canada's system. Perhaps someday you will all wake up and realize it.

Anyway, enough about Canada. The thread's about the US Electoral System. And that also sucks.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:23

I'm not happy the Liberals are dictators. The Liberals are corporate stoolies and a centre-left party. I'm a far left waacko who would be happier with the dictatorship of the proletariat...

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:25

For someone who's not happy with the Liberals you seem to be giving Chretien a fairly regular blowjob and the government setup a thumbs up...

Just admit it: You don't want a US-style senate because it'd give the right wing more power, and you're a far left nutcase. Admit that and I'll be happy, because it's annoying to see you be so against the principles of democracy under a facade of being more fair. You just want less right wing involvement in your government.

Also very typical.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 06:26

Fruckin x-posts

KH,

Truth!

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:31

Not at all, ashie. A Senate would prolly have either 2,3 or 4 provinces worth of NDPers (Manitoba and Sask. for sure, other provs on cyclic basis). The right would get around the same number and the libs would have ~4 on a regular basis.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:32

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not at all, ashie. A Senate would prolly have either 2,3 or 4 provinces worth of NDPers (Manitoba and Sask. for sure, other provs on cyclic basis). The right would get around the same number and the libs would have ~4 on a regular basis.

So why are you upset with this? I don't understand it at all, you're making no sense.

You are not happy the liberals are dictators, while at the same time you're not open to the possibility of countering the tyranny of the majority.

God I hope Quebec separates, my head is spinning.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:34

Asher, I just don't bring up the things I disagree with Chrétien on, and if you disagree with him on an issue then it's likely I'll agree with him (and vice-versa). That's what comes of him standing between us, politically.

Asher: Chrétien's going to ratify Kyoto

Me: Good

Asher: You're a Liberal voter in disguise

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:36

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher, I just don't bring up the things I disagree with Chrétien on

IOW, you're fairly content with Chretien to the point of not finding it worth your time to complain about anything. So...

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

So why are you upset with this? I don't understand it at all, you're making no sense.

You are not happy the liberals are dictators, while at the same time you're not open to the possibility of countering the tyranny of the majority.

God I hope Quebec separates, my head is spinning.

I'm objecting because it's not fair, in my mind. I'm not arguing this way because of any concrete political advantage it would give my side; I'm arguing this way because I'm in favour of a system where all Canadians have an equal say in choosing their government.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm in favour of a system where all Canadians have an equal say in choosing their government.

Which doesn't work when your province continually elects a party that is not in the majority government, which means they're effectively useless....

btw, continue discussing here before we're banned for a threadjack: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=53147

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 06:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

IOW, you're fairly content with Chretien to the point of not finding it worth your time to complain about anything. So...

Actually, I disagree with Chrétien on so many issues that it's not worth discussing.

Top national news items from cbc.ca:

1) Police, protesters clash outside G-7 meeting in N.S.

The police have been given far too many powers to deal with protests that are often either totally peaceful (APEC) or are mainly peaceful until the police riot (Quebec)

2) Manley scolds U.S. on farm subsidies

We shouldn't be scolding or subsidizing; we should be applying an import duty on ag produce from US that has been subsidized

3) 'We're sand-bagging like crazy': Manitoba volunteer

They should keep sandbagging. I'm not certain what Chrétien's stance is

4) B.C. Anglican diocese approves blessing for same-sex unions

Fine with me. Not certain what Chrétien's stance is again. On a related note, married couples (gay or straight) without children should not be granted favourable tax status

5) Indo-Canadians discuss gang violence in B.C.

This is what the police should be concentrating on

6) Five dead in shooting rampage in Ontario

Same comment as above. The bastard that did it was American, by the way.