A few comments in response to this post. (It got too long for a comment). First, I definitely think PR is the way to go (COUPLED WITH an elected and equal senate). The fact that nobody will form majority governments under such a system is a feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned.
Second, I don't bemoan low voter turnout at all. I don't accept the "if you don't vote you can't complain" viewpoint. If you vote and don't like the result you're just a sore loser - you chose to get involved in a game that hands the reins of govenment, in all its unspeakable power, to the internally-selected leader of a party supported by 30-some percent of voters. So I completely understand why people might not want to get involved in such a sham.
Third, I don't recall many people worried about "dictatorships" when the Liberals were in power...is this anything other than what it's called when it's the party you don't like who is in charge? (Very similar to the way that "fascist" has become code in the States for "any idea or activity I don't like".)
Fourth, as a wise man said today in an e-mail conversation: "I honestly feel that Western Canada would not be anywhere near as conservative as it is, if the Quebecois didn’t serve as such a strongly repulsive pole to the way things work out here." Well put.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, in my own defense, you "might" be taking my comments a bit too literally, so.....
PR along with a reformed Senate? Fine with me. Don't get me started on the Senate, though. A sinecure for former party hacks that it is right now....
I've never been a supporter of insiders selecting leaders of organizations that have influence over a wider group. Our SK teachers union was a case in point - the Union president was chosen by a small group of delegates at a convention, NOT the membership at large. The difference here is that I "could" become a political party member and "could" attend the convention and be directly involved, but with my beliefs, it would likely be to choose the leader of the Greens and the chance of that person becoming...well you get the picture.
I'm not the one to have first used the word dictatorship - many have commented about how Harper muzzles his cabinet. It's a one-man show. This is a dangerous situation as history will show us. Chretien had similar tendencies. Harper and his party is using the RCMP to silence anyone asking embarrasing questions at campaign functions. This smacks of a police state. People ought to be concerned and speak out. Is this the country we want? Concerns were expressed about similar behaviour by the previous Liberal government. The only way this is going to change, I think, is for the composition of the Commons to change and PR is that avenue. The Cons and the Libs have to get over their attitude that they are the "natural governing party". They are not. Not any more. Not with PR. This is why people need to get involved with this "sham". We get the government we deserve and democracy is the worst, most inefficient type there is, aside from all the rest. Neither quote is mine.
Finally, when Harper was first elected, I thought that there might be some upsides here, and, in some cases there were. I have since been persuaded to become more negative which is not to say I'm all that positive about any of the alternatives right now.
So, there you are.
Post a Comment