A political question

[TheJord]

Canada is holding an election this May because the current Conservative government received a vote of no confidence from Parliament (as they held a minority, this wasn't too hard to achieve).

Canadian parliamentary system is set up in the same manner as my homeland, the UK, in a 'first past the post' system. This means, if there are 101 seats in parliament, the first to 51 holds a majority and can form a government. Here in Canada and in the UK both elections have led to hung parliaments, or minority governments where coalitions between parties exist.

There has been some call for a proportional representation system, where seats are assigned by popular vote percentage. This has pros and cons as well, the main con being fringe (usually extreme) parties can gain seats based on the aggregate amount of votes they receive. Instead of merely losing in constituencies, those votes count towards a total, which is the huge catch 22 of PR.

I find that parties never fully cover the topics I want addressed, and that I have to compromise to vote. I also think people vote because they don't want a certain party leader (ie Michael Ignatieff) in power.

Is there a more harmonious way?

PS, I'm not a Canadian citizen so I can't even vote, but as an observer these are my musings

[macheteman]

the best solution i've found is to always vote for myself...

just kidding, but you actually can. this girl i know voted for me siter for some public office. just because she didn't like anyone who was running.

[TheJord]

That's just it, what if I don't like the local person in the constituency, or the party they represent?

[Gil-Estel]

Democracy is cruel, especially with more people involved. The bigger the crowd, the more people will be disappointed about decisions made. We see it in the Netherlands now, and in more European countries that people tend to vote for those parties that have quite extreme opinions, and that are very populist. People are so used to get what they want, that they are not willing to think rationally. In the end democracy will die due to lack of willing to compromise.....

[legolas3333]

Well, if you find yourself judging between the lessar of two evils, don't vote! Just skip past the issues/offices that don't have appealing options.

[Gil-Estel]

Not voting is not the smartest thing to do, that will increase the importance of other votes....

[macheteman]

Not voting is not the smartest thing to do, that will increase the importance of other votes....

true, and i agree with that. but in the extreme cases, a citizen has the right to NOT vote, and should exercise that right if the candidates are such that their political agendas are in conflict with a citizen's personal convictions.

for an easy example, lets say all the candidates want to implement a program to exterminate all the trees on planet earth. an environmentalist should probably go ahead and abstain from that vote for their conscience' sake. or vote for themselves ;-)

[legolas3333]

Quite an unrealistic example mm, but yeah, that's the point I was trying to make.

Just out of curiosity where does everyone fall on the political spectrum? I would put myself slightly right of center if I had to come down on either side.

[macheteman]

I am independent.

[Gil-Estel]

I'm in doubt here..... In some aspects I am somewhere at the right I guess, though most would consider me a lefty...there is some red in me ;-)

[TheJord]

There is political left and right and economic left and right.

[legolas3333]

I did say "political spectrum"...

[TheJord]

I would say I'm in the liberalism circle on the economic and social right.

[macheteman]

i'm pretty much an advocate of laissez-faire economics. of TRUE laissez-faire economics. which my country isn't even close to having...

i'm probably to the social right within the liberalism circle. there are a few aspects of libertarianism that i agree with, a few aspects of environmentalism i agree with, etc...

[jdizzy001]

HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE! Okay that isn't entirely true. I do believe in social programs BUT I believe those programs should come from sources other than government. The government has three roles in my opinion

1. build infrastructure (IE roads)
2. maintain a military (borders, language, culture)
3. print currency (but not too much. 14 trillion dollars of debt is WAY too much.)

Some people think this is naive. However, I would say spending more money on social programs than your tax base offers is naiveté. Look at all the global upheaval caused by too many government social programs. Heck, look what happened in Greece. However, to be fair, some people think the the private sector can not create social programs because they are profit driven. I never said the private sector had to create the programs. That is what religion is for, caring for others. Let the churches help support the poor and the needy, let the honest folk earn their living, make money, and take care of themselves, and let the government protect the country's border, language, and culture. One of the scariest things I hear is, "I'm from the government, I'm hear to help!"