🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Ostrander wrote:
> The poll that I rely on most is the one called election.  

Good.  Let's have one then.  It beats the Three Stooges and their power 
grab.


Anyway, the
> "rules" of operation for the political process are not decided from week 
> to week by public opinion.

Nope, they are by election.  Bring it on.

> 
> It's you who are out in left field with your winner-takes-all theory.  

There is no 'winner-takes-all' theory, this is the way Canadian politics 
works.  One vote, one party, one MP.  Not 1/3 vote to one party, 1/3 
vote to another, and 1/3 to a third. Your ignorance of how our system 
works is appalling.


> Yes, you have some company, but your opinions are based on feelings, not 
> on history or the facts.

Sorry, but they are.  Your opinions on the other hand are based on your 
opposition to Harper and the Conservatives, and th fact that you would 
wantonly throw out parliamentary traditions just to satiate your own 
biases.

Let the Conservatives fall in a confidence vote, if that is the way that 
events are to unfold, but the natural and democratic consequence of that 
should be an election, not a powergrab by a trio of three individuals.

> 
> I pulled out my old high school history book (Building the Canadian 
> Nation by George Brown) and checked what I was taught.  I quote (page 
> 627): "Sometimes there are more than two parties in the elected House, 
> none of which has a majority, and this leads to an interesting 
> situation. Two of them, for instance, may decide to work together in 
> order to have a majority, and this union is called a Coalition. 
> Coalition governments may last some time, but they are often short-lived."

Where in that quote does it say that this is the natural consequence of 
a failed loss of confidence motion?

> 
> Also on that page: "If a government measure is defeated, the vote is 
> almost always regarded as a vote of "want of confidence", the result of 
> which will be the resignation of the Cabinet and almost certainly 
> another general election."   The "almost" part refers to the present 
> circumstances.

It should be obvious to you why such a situation is not a common 
occurrence in Canadian politics, it decides on power without the consent 
of the voters.  Not to mention creating deep scars within the national 
consciousness.  This seems to be the point that you keep missing, no one 
is arguing the legality of such a move.  What is being argued is how 
such a move runs counter to democratic principles and the will of the 
people; the ones who must have the ultimate decision making authority.

My vote is *one* vote.  Not 1/3 of a vote, to be allocated in a manner 
based upon the isolated decisions of three lone individuals.



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------

"If a coup does not make use of the masses, or of warfare,
what instrument of power will enable it to seize control of the state?
The short answer is that the power will come from the state itself."

-Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook
                       By Edward Luttwak