🚀 go-pugleaf

Consider this....

Lets say there were only two parties, "A" and "B".  If 49% of the people
in each electoral district voted for Party A, and 51% voted for Party B,
this would result in ALL of the Party B candidates winning every seat in
Parliament.  Party B, therefore, would have a majority (100%) government.
Yet, 49% of the population chose Party A.  Are these people being represented
in Parliament.  Supposedly they would be, but by the OTHER person.

Case in point...In Ottawa, the "Official opposition" is the Bloc Quebecois.
Is that to say that the majority of the people of Canada voted Liberal, and
in second place - by total votes (votes=taxpayers=real people) would be
the Bloc.  I have a hard time believeing that!

Theoretically, if 40% vote Liberal, the Grits should hold 40% of the seats.
Likewise, for the second place Reformers (I assume) who should hold the
next largest percentage of seats based on total votes, and so on.

In Ontario, for example, there is much discussion on who I might feel is
the best Leader, Rae, McLeod, or Harris.  But that is really irrelevant.
I am not voting for them, I must choose between the candidates in my riding.
Really, if I chose to vote for the Natural Law Party (as a few people do)
that vote is essentially wasted.  Even if 1% of voters choose Natural Law,
in all fairness those voters should be represented by NL MPP's holding
1% of the seats.  

I think we should vote for the LEADER.  The one with the most votes must
therefore have the confidence of the majority of the population.  Votes
can then be divided regionally, and if the people of Brampton South were
more inclined to vote NDP (for example) then that area would have an NDP
MPP and that would count toward that party's pecentage of seats.

Whew, I feel better now!  Even though it will probably never change!