@Monkey:
Serious irregularities in Canadian elections. M'kay sure.
Not in the elections, in the referendum (which like I said, was won by 0,6% of the vote)…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal
When you look at the history of Quebec, although it's relatively alright now, I think it's normal to be a bit bitter.
@Monkey:
And at what point in Canadian history is that supposed to be?
Checked my stuff, I was wrong on that one… Liberals ruled when cons where divided, after that, Cons ruled while the left was divided, etc.
@Monkey:
I'm seeing a pattern of kind of hyperbole here?
…for money. That's called trade.
I was just explaining the views of Pierre Falardeau (how I percieved them anyways), the guy who made the movie. However, rereading, it does look like I'm saying it's what i think, sorry for that, I'm not anti-american.
Personaly, the reason I write that I'm from "Republic of Santa Banana" is mainly because of corrupt governments that we seem to have… Just recently, the Liberal Party of Quebec (and to a lighter degree the Parti Quebecois) was marred with a huge corruption scandal (links with the mafia, collusion in the construction, financing of the politicals parties, even a secret salary to the PM), yet they were reelected...
Plus the fact historically, the francophone majority WAS lorded over by a minority of invaders... + the fact that the autochtones were/are in an even worst situation...
@Monkey:
You think a bit over a decade (of democratic elections) suggests equivalence to a one party state. Ughhhhh.
First off, let's ignore most non-voters because that's not un-democratic. That's people not exercising a right they freely have. There may be problems with ease of voting sure, but that amount really shouldn't be counted as you say it is.
Since you guys do it British style, "power" is based on proportion of the parliament. With yeah the plurality/majority getting the extra perks. But no this doesn't friggin' evaporate the other votes, the other parties have their proportional or so seats. You're talking like the 40% that just voted for the Liberal party are the only ones with any government representation lol. Except no.
Like I said, the quote ain't the truth, but sometimes it does apply… Does the president/prime minister controls all power, of course not... but the fact remains that in most democracies, the control over half of the dominant faction at a time = a lot of power. There is very little way around it.
What do you want me to say, yeah, democracies are ok... I much rather live in one... Still, do we have to all say that democracy is perfect or absolute?
@Monkey:
In the US our presidential elections do kinda evaporate the loser votes, but we have the congress where often enough the president faces a congress dominated by the other party. Obama has been roasted over a spit and fighting every single day against a Republican dominated congress. Man, wish I lived in the reality you do where Obama gained absolute power for four years on winning both times lol.
What about the GW Bush years then?
@Monkey:
Also doesn't Canada also have provincial elections in the same regard? That's a whole new level of complexity and governance and representatives.
Sure, never said the contrary.
@Monkey:
Well that's just gonna happened sometimes, especially in a place so heavily politically divided apparently. Though lol that ought to be rare on such micro levels.
Dependig on the elections, there may less counties where the winner is above 50% than the contrary. But hey, advantages and desavantages of proportional vs winner takes all. If one was clearly better, there probably wouldn't be so much diversity amongst countries…
@Monkey:
A fool's errand like Quebec seperatism seems to be kind of driving some people nuts when they go to vote I guess.
What the heck you dudes doing with this European style nationalism in the western Hemisphere. Look where that's gettin' you with your four way elections.
Much of the progress in Quebec was made because of/in conjoncture with the "Quebec seperatism", while separatism is a pretty extreme reaction, it's a natural consequence of oppression. Let's not forget that for a great part of Quebec's history (which for a long time was most of Canada), the official doctine was assimilation of the francophone masses and it almost succeded. Although, to be fair, separatism rarely ends that great when it's successful…
As for European style nationalism, it's the nasty part of today's "Quebec seperatism"... frankly, it disgusts me... but, people are more xenophobic when they feel that hey aren't masters of their destinies...
@Monkey:
Empower semi-random 30-40% of population political group. A cunning plan.
Now that you say it, it's not really as much divide and conquer as "try not to be the side that is divided" lol
@Monkey:
You realize with all the different levels of representation, that it's very unlikely you actually get people unrepresented? And the ones who do are probably not in the area of 60% of the population gonna guess.
I get what you say, still, doesn't change the fact that for more than a decade, the Harper gov ruled while not being very popular…
@Monkey:
Then we have senators…representatives...
Then the governors...state senators...state representatives...
Then a blizzard of different local government systems that might be mayors and councils...or other stuff...
Did I imply otherwise? if I did, sorry about it…
@Monkey:
So do we. But what's the deal with that senate of yours?
Similar to your congress I think, they approve the laws.
Although, they're named instead of elected, basicly, the parliement names "great canadians" who then can remain for as long as they want. I think in theory it's supposed to be non-partisan but… yeah.
I suppose it's a way to ensure a certain level of stability on the long term...
@Monkey:
You have a prime minister. Which while not really directly voted for is basically the same thing.
You're not gonna sell me on royalty in the 21st century, however symbolic they are… most people in the rest of Canada love them though, so I'm not gonna throw a fit over it either way...
Ok and just to be clear, I'll explain what is my point with that quote anyway... it's the fact that people are gonna rally behind the party they feel is the most compatible with their beliefs, so, I Trump is the nominate, most Republicans are still gonna vote for him, because to them, it's better than Clinton. Same thing for Clinton.
In most democracies, people will rally behind their party, it's pragmatism. Thus, the candidate only needs 51% of the people who vote in the primaries of the winning party to become president.
I know it's not the TRUTH (for many psychological, political, etc. reasons) but there is still truth to that. I mean what percentage of americans want any of Clinton, Trump, Cruz or Sanders to be president at this point, probably not more than 30-35% for any of those... Not saying it won't coalesce, only that by having a relatively small % of people supporting them, one of those IS gonna be president