[bizzare]

Now I'm scared. Canada has 2 communist parties on the ballot:


COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA


MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF CANADA

But I know who I'm voting for:


MARIJUANA PARTY OF CANADA



------------------
-Bizzare

[suprz]

i thought canada was already communist...oh wait, that's right it's mostly french....not AS bad i guess

------------------
" I think,
therefore....IMAC

[DBursey]

That's right, mostly french. Approximately 8 million french speaking in a national population of 30 million. BTW, nice to hear from someone from the 'People's Republic of Rhode Island'

Bizzare, I'm sure you can read up on your party (and party favour) of choice at this site.

[jholmes]

What's to be scared of? The platform is essentially the same as that of the American Democratic party. In Canada they just have made the mistake of actually calling themselves Communists.


From The CPC Site -

Curb the transnational corporations -- scrap NAFTA and defend Canadian sovereignty
Make job creation, especially the shorter work week with no loss in pay, the top priority
Shift the tax burden onto the wealthy corporations
Defend and improve universal social programs
Defend the environment against corporate devastation
Guarantee the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively
Expand democratic political rights; promote equality for women and people of colour

[jaguarandi]

And this is a bad thing? I'm all for everything on that list (even NAFTA being dismantled - and I'm American!)

/e

[bizzare]

Actually the only party I'm seriously scared of getting any seats is this one:

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY OF CANADA

From their website:

We believe in the following: There is one Creator God, eternally existent in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible to be the inspired, inerrant written Word of God and the final authority above all man's laws and government. Civil government to be under the authority of God. The purpose of civil government is to ensure freedom and justice for a nation's citizens by upholding law and order in accordance with Biblical principles. Decision-making processes by civil government must not in any way contravene these Biblical ethics.

------------------
-Bizzare

[This message has been edited by bizzare (edited 11-07-2000).]

[MezzanineKid]

Thats all I have to say about that.

Ca$h

[MrTomServo]

Have to admit, though ... that CPC logo is pretty cool ...

[ZibbBar]

Originally posted by MrTomServo:
Have to admit, though ... that CPC logo is pretty cool ...

what's the name of that guy who sang "Addicted To Love"?

[MrTomServo]

Originally posted by ZibbBar:
what's the name of that guy who sang "Addicted To Love"?

Ha. Real original ... I think all of 1987 beat you to it.

[bizzare]

isn't his name Robert Palmer? Thats a really bad song, why did you want to know who sang it?

------------------
-Bizzare

[crazycylon]

Originally posted by bizzare:
Now I'm scared. Canada has 2 communist parties on the ballot:

That should be no surprize afterall Canada has been slowly moving away from democracy. The Liberal Party was the first party to introduce a gag law in Canada which prohibited 3rd parties from spending money to oppose or support a political party or issue in 1974 and made the legislation tighter again in 1983 because of loop holes. It keeps getting defeated in the courts but every party in power keeps reintroducing it with slight modification ie limit spending to $1,000 ($600 US) then try again at $3,000 ($1,800US). The Liberal and Progressive Conseratives had both been doing it. The provincial governement has tried it too. No I am not suprized by this but I am ashamed that Canadian have put up with this kind of BS for far too long.


[This message has been edited by crazycylon (edited 11-07-2000).]

[rjenkinson]

haven't both the CPC and MLPC been on the ballot for years though? wasn't there some big to-do about whether they'd be officially considered parties by elections canada because they have so little support some years ago?

-r.

[DBursey]

Canada has been slowly moving away from democracy

Now there's a leap. How do you figure so? Canada's multi-party parliamentary democratic system may well be the envy of the world. Limiting third-party spending on political advertising during an election hardly constitutes a 'move away from democracy' I think those images of the communist party logo may have gone to your head.

As for the communists being on the bill, they're there precisely because ours is a democratic and tolerant country where political freedom is one of many freedoms we enjoy.

BTW, my new car:



[This message has been edited by DBursey (edited 11-30-2000).]

[crazycylon]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Now there's a leap. How do you figure so? Canada's multi-party parliamentary democratic system .

Don't you mean autocratic? What happened to John Nunziata when he didn't side with the Right Honorable Jean Chretien on the GST? He ended up as a independent did he not? It is the Prime Minister's way or the highway. The First gag law passed in 1974 prohibited any third party spending on any election or issue, that would include during referendums. Had Trudeau succeeded in strengthening the election act you could have end up in jail for 5 years for paying for an ad opposing or supporting an candidate or issue. You don't call that trying to limit democracy?

I wonder had the internet been then what it is today if it would have been included in the election act as well? It is a good thing the courts ruled that part of the election act eliminating 3rd party spending was unacceptable. I am glad they are those who fight to stand up for all our rights.

How is it democratic that a party with only 38% of the popular vote be given a overwhelming majority? Yes we have choice but does it really reflect what Canadians want or wished for? I can see why Canada's multi-party system would be the envy of the world. A party could stay in power for a long time with all the potential vote splitting. With enough parties you could have a majority government with only 25% of the popular vote. Is that democratic? Is it democratic that once a party has a majority they do as they please regardless of what their constituents think?

Attitudes do seem to change just before and during an election but then it is business as usual when they have a majority. I had said we were moving away from democracy not that we were moving towards communism. I had implied it but I did not state it. Yes, I know I made my comments on a post regarding the two communist parties on this years ballet but I hardly consider these parties a threat, they typically only garner 1 or 2% of the vote in a riding.

Everyone eligble to vote in this Federal election please cast your ballet on November 27, 2000. Your vote does count. I imagine a lot of people who didn't vote in Florida are now wishing they had voted.



[This message has been edited by crazycylon (edited 11-09-2000).]

[scottiB]

The CPC logo is pretty hip. Interesting to see a big Communist mural sprawling up the side of the CN Tower.

An aside to my Canadian neighbors: could any of you refer me to the historical story of Les Habitants (sp?). I'm trying to explain to one of my southern co-workers why a nickname of the Montreal Canadiens is "The Habs." I forgot.

[DBursey]

Hi Crazycylon,

You originally said that Canada was moving away from democracy. This implied (to me anyway) that changes are being or have been made to our system of government placing limits on the democratic process as spelled out in our constitution, which is untrue. The �autocratic� behavior you describe can be attributed solely to the manner in which Mr. Chretien chooses to direct members of his (governing) Liberal party, as is his right. This reflects only on Mr. Chretien�s style as party leader, not on the Canadian federal system. There are of course no parliamentary rules forcing MP�s to vote along party lines.

How is it democratic that a party with only 38% of the popular vote be given a overwhelming majority?

This is not an unusual outcome in a multi-party system. It simply means that other parties may have won large percentages in certain ridings, which still results in only one MP being elected from that riding. The Liberals hold 155 out of 301 seats in the house of commons, which is 51 percent, hardly an �overwhelming� majority, but a majority nonetheless. Again, this happens quite frequently in a multi-party system. To win a riding, you need only 50 percent plus one of the ballots cast. The Liberals have their majority in parliament simply because they won more than 50 percent of the votes cast in each of 155 ridings nationwide. Simple as that

And the �gag law�; you are referring still to a law that limits the spending by organizations on advertising during an election campaign, which is IMO not a bad thing. These third parties are still free to contribute lots of $$ to any political party they please, and in turn the parties are allowed to place ads in the media as they see fit. How does this constrain the democratic process?

A party could stay in power for a long time with all the potential vote splitting.

Vote splitting happens all the time. I�m sure Gore supporters in the US would have liked to have gotten the small percentage of votes cast for Nader�s Green party, particularly in Florida. Does this mean Nader should have been left off the ballot? Of course not. Also in the US, look to the fact that Gore may have won the popular vote, but lost the election due to the electoral college numbers. Democracy has many quirks, and can get a little messy sometimes, but it is to be the best system we have right now.

Is it democratic that once a party has a majority they do as they please regardless of what their constituents think?

Yes it is. Of course this means they face the wrath of the electorate come the next election. If you don�t like the performance of the ruling party, say so with your vote. Also, �doing as you please� is not as easy as you might think for the ruling party, majority or not.

I personally like many of the proposals made by the Alliance; particularly allowing MP�s to vote according to the wishes of their constituents as opposed to along party lines, and also the ability of constituents to vote to recall their MP if they dislike the MP�s performance. I hope the Alliance can make some headway into eastern and central Canada this time around. A third majority will do nothing to make Mr. Chretien a more humble fellow.

Finally, if the US election has taught us anything, it is that no one should think that their vote can not affect the outcome. All Canadians should get out and vote on the 27th! Sorry for the long post.

[DBursey]

To ScottiB: Legend has it that the H on the Canadiens logo stands for 'Habs' instead of 'Hockey' as in Club de Hockey Canadien. In 1924, Madison Square Garden owner Tex Rickard was falsely told by someone that the 'H' stood for 'habitant', a French word that in those days was used to denote the farmers of Quebec.

Rickard was told that the French players on the team came from the farms and that they were therefore 'habitants' or 'Habs'for short. At the time, the Canadiens were considered Montreal's French team, as opposed to the primarly English Montreal Maroons. This nickname has stayed with the team, and in Hockey circles 'the Habs' is commonly used in reference to the club.

[bizzare]

They only way the country is going to change for the better, is if you vote for the Marijuana Party. Serious!!! Check this out:

• $72 billion in new revenue for the country, and about $6 billion in savings each year through.
• "Marijuana tourism" in Canada could inject $200 billion a year into the economy, based on just one percent of the U.S. population crossing the border to sample the Canadian Bud.
• The underground marijuana industry is estimated to be bigger than the forestry industry in British Columbia.
• Authorities spend more than $3 billion a year fighting the war on drugs.

Also for you people who think Marijuana is bad for you, check this out:

• Occasional use not harmful.
• Marijuana is NOT addictive.
• Not causal with criminal behavior.
• Does not make people violent.
• Has never caused a death.
• Amotivational syndrome is a myth.
• Less than 1% try other drugs (gateway theory is debunked).
• Cannabis is not a narcotic.
• Prohibition is very harmful.
• No evidence of mental damage.

Here's what is going on here:



------------------
-Bizzare

[This message has been edited by bizzare (edited 11-09-2000).]

[MezzanineKid]

HAhHAHhaHAHa

[crazycylon]

Well said DBursey,

Originally posted by DBursey:
There are of course no parliamentary rules forcing MP?s to vote along party lines.

That is true but both the Liberal and Progressive Party party run that way. That is one of the reasons David Kilgour formally a PC crossed the floor to the Liberals. The only exception was the Canadian Alliance formally the Reform party. I for one would like to see more voting along what the constituents want rather than what the leader wants.

Of course this means they face the wrath of the electorate come the next election.

That is as long as the people don't fall for the carrots they offer just before and during the election. It seems people have to be really upset like they were in 1993 to get out and vote. I don't think the PC's will every forget how the electorate punished them.

These third parties are still free to contribute lots of $$ to any political party they please, and in turn the parties are allowed to place ads in the media as they see fit. How does this constrain the democratic process?

It constrains the democratic process when all parties are in agreement on an issue; you don't get an opposing view. Yes, you can donate money to party but that does not guarantee that an issue the donar wants to get attention gets attention. All that gets attention is what the party wants brought to attention.

To win a riding, you need only 50 percent plus one of the ballots cast.

Not necessary true. The only two Liberal seats won in Edmonton were won with only 43.45% and 45.98% of the popular vote in the riding. Like I had said more parties more vote splitting. It is conceivable that a candidate could win a riding with 35% of the vote.

Finally, if the US election has taught us anything, it is that no one should think that their vote can not affect the outcome. All Canadians should get out and vote on the 27th!

With that you have full agreement.

crazycylon

[This message has been edited by crazycylon (edited 11-10-2000).]