🚀 go-pugleaf

"snowman" <x@x.x> wrote in message news:3Ui_k.2658$uS1.2489@newsfe19.iad...
> Andrew Ostrander wrote:
>>
>> "snowman" <x@x.x> wrote in message 
>> news:J%1_k.7613$ED.5318@newsfe22.iad...
>>
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:09:02 -0600, "Andrew Ostrander"
>>>>> <apanda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Harper wasn't elected into office.  I didn't see any choice on my 
>>>>>> ballot for Harper.  I voted for my local mp.
>>>
>>> And was your local MP a Liberal, an NDP or a Separatist?  Or was he 1/3 
>>> of each?  Were you voting 1/3 for each one or just *one* party?  See, 
>>> that's the problem with this little coup, it is one vote, one party. 
>>> That's something that Dion, Laytoon and their Separatist allies fail to 
>>> understand.
>>>
>> I don't really get your point.  The Canadian people collectively elected 
>> mps from 4 parties, and send them to Ottawa to work out a way to run the 
>> country.  The way they've worked out doesn't have Harper as PM.
>
> I've repeated this enough but for your sake, I shall do so once more. 
> After the loss of a confidence vote, it is the people who decide the 
> government, not three individuals who make backroom deals outside of the 
> public scrutiny.  Why should it matter just how soon the last election 
> was?  This is a democracy, not a banana republic.

Sorry, but what you learned about confidence votes seems to be different 
from what I learned about them.  I learned (years ago) that if a PM loses a 
confidence vote, the Governor General can appoint someone else as Prime 
Minister, and if that person has the support of the House of Commons, then 
he/she remains the new PM.  Go back and check your school books, or some 
other source of information.