Election day poll

[offsidewing]

Remember, more than half of the country voted for someone other than that Abe Lincoln guy when he ran for Pres.  Same for "Dubba Hot-Tub in the White House" lawn Bill Clinton.  Harrison doesn't count.

- Isreal.  They need our help.  France has done a poor job sticking up for them since the they and the UK loaded Isreal up with nukes.

- Voting.  Get out and do it.  85% of the stuff on the ballots is local election type stuff.  It impacts you more immediately than the president.  

- Same sex marriage.  I have no personal opinion about the morality surrounding the issue, but since a good bit of family law is practiced around "mother" and "father" you have 100+ years of legislation to re-write once same-sex parents start divorcing with children.

- I've read in several widely circulated right wing newsletters that Obama is a staunch supporter of Johnny Turbo and looks to eliminate the threat posed by FEKA.

[ceti alpha]

I agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.   Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote. Right now the "left" vote is split between the Liberals, the NDP the Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois. So in our last election most Canadians voted on the left, but their votes were divided amongst 4 parties, and consequently, the Conservative Party formed gov't. What Canada has yet to do, but I see coming, is forming coalition gov'ts. If these parties form a coalition they can go to the Governor General (the most powerful person in the Gov't) and form a new gov't.

As for Israel, and I'm not too sure what it has to do with this conversation, but Israel puts itself on a higher standard than other nations. Israel is self proclaimed democracy (and it is a democracy, if you're a citizen) and they don't do themselves any favours by illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Israel always claims a double standard when people criticize them, but again, they don't do themselves any favours by comparing themselves with rogue nations that break international law. They should really raise the bar higher than that. That being said, Israel isn't going anywhere and nor should it. Iraq, Iran, Syria etc, use the Mid East Conflict as an excuse to criticize Israel and spout antisemetism.

The fact is EVERY American president will support Israel, but what Israel needs is some tough love. The only way out of this problem is the two state solution (pre 1967 borders, or something close to that). I would imagine most Israelis and Palestinians would make large sarcrifices in order to finally achieve peace. It's always the extremists and fundamentalists that are able to keep peace from being acheived.

[Necromancer]

Remember, more than half of the country voted for someone other than that Abe Lincoln guy when he ran for Pres.  Same for "Dubba Hot-Tub in the White House" lawn Bill Clinton.

That's just a consequence of having more than two parties; they still won the popular vote by having the highest percentage of votes.

- Same sex marriage.  I have no personal opinion about the morality surrounding the issue, but since a good bit of family law is practiced around "mother" and "father" you have 100+ years of legislation to re-write once same-sex parents start divorcing with children.

Yet that problem already exists, as many states grant 'civil unions' that provide the same sorts of legal rights as 'married' couples.  Separate but equal..... wait, that didn't work out so good last time. 

[td741]

What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.  

To be fair, when the separatists lost the last referendum and interest in separation in Quebec waned (enough), the Bloc changed their role to safeguard against the federal government imposing its will in matters of provincial jurisdiction.  I.E. Provinces are the ones constitutionally obligated to manage their health care systems.  The federal government shouldn't start programs that in turn dictate how the province manages their health care systems, etc.

We used to have a vote split on the right as well when the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance started to make strides stealing votes from the Progressive Conservatives.  That was part of the reason why we had a strong majority Liberal government during the Chretien years.  Now that the right has united, it magnified the same issues on the left.  

What Canada has yet to do, but I see coming, is forming coalition gov'ts. If these parties form a coalition they can go to the Governor General (the most powerful person in the Gov't) and form a new gov't.

It might be a little tricky however.  The Liberals were often viewed as wanting a strong federal government whose policies might collide with the Bloc's ideology of maintaining the delineation between the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I might be wrong but the Governor General could accept a coalition government if:
1) If a minority government falls, then the GG could invite the opposition parties to form a coalition instead of calling another election.  This would only happen if they can convince the GG that this coalition government would hold.  However, at this point, most parties generally feel that they would gain more from an election.

2) If the party that was previously in power looses an election to another party that can only form a minority government, the previous prime-minister can request with the GG to form a coalition (majority) government.  

Sorry for the people in the US for spamming your thread with Canadian election babble...  

Full disclosure: yes I'm a francophone but I'm not from Quebec.  My ancestry (going way back to my European ancestors) landed in Eastern Ontario and we've pretty much stayed in the area.  Personally, I don't see a point in the separatism movement.  I might sympathize with a party that wants to maintain a delineation of the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

[rag-time4]

As for Israel, and I'm not too sure what it has to do with this conversation, but Israel puts itself on a higher standard than other nations. Israel is self proclaimed democracy (and it is a democracy, if you're a citizen) and they don't do themselves any favours by illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Israel always claims a double standard when people criticize them, but again, they don't do themselves any favours by comparing themselves with rogue nations that break international law. They should really raise the bar higher than that. That being said, Israel isn't going anywhere and nor should it. Iraq, Iran, Syria etc, use the Mid East Conflict as an excuse to criticize Israel and spout antisemetism.

The fact is EVERY American president will support Israel, but what Israel needs is some tough love. The only way out of this problem is the two state solution (pre 1967 borders, or something close to that). I would imagine most Israelis and Palestinians would make large sarcrifices in order to finally achieve peace. It's always the extremists and fundamentalists that are able to keep peace from being acheived.

Ceti, I introduced the topic of Israel because I think that issue is central to a lot of what's going on in that part of the world, and I'm not interested in supporting any candidate who is not committed to holding Israel accountable to a higher bar not only in rhetoric but in their behavior.

You're right that Israel uses 'antisemitism' and 'double standard' as rhetorical defenses against criticism. Here's a

Here's a video on youtube of responding to charges of 'anti-semitism', including pointing out that Arabs are semitic people too, and are rightfully more semitic than the Europeans who have settled in Palestine/Israel.

In terms of my argument, I focus on Israel not because I hate Israel, but rather because the United States is already firmly against Palestinian extremism and terrorism, which is a position of the United States that I'm not criticising.... but I feel that the United States needs to do more to hold Israel to a higher standard of behavior and humane conduct.

Here are some emails from an American peace activist who was killed in Gaza explaining what she saw over there. There is a memorial website set up for her at http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

So if I'm not impressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's ridiculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

Thanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. 

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

My apathy toward voting is based on the frequent deceptions of elected officials. For example, President Lyndon Johnson ran with a promise to keep the nation out of war, but got the nation into the Vietnam war.

If Obama follows through on his promises for change and does things I agree with, I'll vote for him for his second term. If he turns out to be just another liar and just another blowhard, I'll continue to abstain, which carries with it some significance, as I believe voter apathy levels have an impact on world opinion and how our system is seen abroad.

I think that Obama represents the hope of many people around the world that this nation can change for the better. Admitting that America actually needs to change is an important first step. What happens next will determine whether or not I vote for his second term.

[guyjin]

I agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.   Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote.

Then you guys should adopt a (prefferably instant) runoff voting system.

Also, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/

[Necromancer]

Also, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/

Careful what you say.  You never know when Chuck is listening. 

[ceti alpha]

I agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.   Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote.

Then you guys should adopt a (prefferably instant) runoff voting system.

Also, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/

lol. It's true. We might have elections every 2 years or so, but at least they only last six weeks.

Our "first past the post" electoral system is not very representative of the popular vote. Some form of proportional representation is something many Canadians are wishing for. The problem is that the gov't in power, regardless of ideology, is never eager to change how elections work.

As for the Bloc's "role change" as a protector of Quebec's interest, I don't buy it. And Regardless of that, why should Quebec be allowed to have its own representation in the House of Commons? Wouldn't it be a shit show if Newfoundland or Alberta (wait...they do have their own party in the House...The "New" Conservatives hehe ), or Ontario had their own parties in the House. The way I see it, unless you are running candidates in EVERY riding in the country, you don't belong in the House. I understand the desire to protect provincial jurisdictions, but that's not the way to go about it. IMHO hehe

[rag-time4]

Thanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. 

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

Necro, just wanted to add that I hear you on those other ballot issues... initiatives, propositions, and what not. I'm kind of in between living situations now.... but I know that I'm not going to be leaving California so I could have voted on the state level stuff.

I'll strive to keep myself a bit more informed.