Stephen Harper is the new Canadian Prime Minister

[----Bowie----]

The CBC just called a minority Conservative government.




I think I'm going to be sick.:(

[Agent Smith]

Not before me...:mad:

Edit: And yes, I did vote, and no, it wasn't Conservative...

Edit x2: Let's hope that the NDP wields enough power to temper the insanity of Conservative policies.

[fistful]

Excuse me while I bash my head against the wall...

I'll be alright. :o

[rickvanr]

Looks like you two voted in line with me.

I too am a little disappointed in this outcome, but be thankful it is not a majority. That would be scary.

[Stella]

Sigh.

The conservatives will
- [expletive deleted] the cities.
- cut public services.
- [expletive deleted] over the poor.
- send Canadian troops to needless conflicts ( and thus eating up taxes instead of spending the money on the greater good ).

Well, after the conservatives have completed the destruction of Canada, at least you'll know why you shouldn't vote for them again.

At least there shouldn't be a majority government. One saving grace.

[Counterfit]

Crap, now I've got insanity south AND north of me :(

Oh wait, I've had that ever since Mitt Romney was elected :rolleyes:

[Koodauw]

Who is the member who has the X through the liberal logo and then says... There is better way or something like that as an 'tar?

I bet he's happy.

[rickvanr]

Who is the member who has the X through the liberal logo and then says... There is better way or something like that as an 'tar?

I bet he's happy.
ChrisFromCanada I think.. :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=175395

[fartheststar]

I am disappointed. Even though I voted NDP, at least I have a non-conservative in my riding.

Surprising, since I live in the riding Peter Kent ran in. A celebrity usually gets more votes.

Edit: Stephen Harper, scary man. Looks like Anne McLellan just lost her seat on the live update screen. Alberta is all blue.

[Leareth]

[expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted]...

just what canada needs, a right wing nut job running the country...
the good news is that the tories will [expletive deleted] this country up so bad nobody will vote for them in the next election.

I can kiss my funding goodbye. I needed the liberals to win...even thought I hate them and their double talk policies but still better then the Nazi party of canada ( aka the tories for those who have not been following the canadian news)

but at least the NDP seems to be doing well this time around...:rolleyes: :o :(

[Danksi]

Sigh.

The conservatives will
- [expletive deleted] the cities....

- send Canadian troops to needless conflicts ( and thus eating up taxes instead of spending the money on the greater good ).


It was interesting to hear (CBC earlier) that there are no Conservative seats in any of the three biggest cities in Canada.

... unfortunately Canadian troops are deployed. Not directly involved in conflict, but allowing their allies to be directly involved - unfortunately they're getting killed in action, but it's not reaching the global headlines.

How do you punish a government, without punishing the public?

[rickvanr]

[expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted]...

just what canada needs, a right wing nut job running the country...
the good news is that the tories will [expletive deleted] this country up so bad nobody will vote for them in the next election.

I can kiss my funding goodbye. I needed the liberals to win...even thought I hate them and their double talk policies but still better then the Nazi party of canada ( aka the tories for those who have not been following the canadian news)

but at least the NDP seems to be doing well this time around...:rolleyes: :o :(

Yeah, but you'll save 2¢ on a can of coke. :mad:

[Stella]

I'm an Immigrant too, just another 600 odd days until I can apply for Citizenship... so I can't vote either :-(

Yes, Canadian troops are deployed in Afganistan ( for example ), but I should should have been more explicit - Iraq. Afgan is much more of a worthy cause than Iraq - which is no more than an Oil grab, not to mention a total mess. Iraq never hand anything to do with 11/9. A Needless war, imo.

Tax breaks would be good and much welcomed, as long as public services don't get cut.

It was interesting to hear (CBC earlier) that there are no Conservative seats in any of the three biggest cities in Canada.

... also note that Canadian troops are deployed. Not directly involved, but allowing their allies to be directly involved - unfortunately they're getting killed in action, but it's not reaching the global headlines.

BTW - As an immigrant I don't get a vote, but a tax break would be nice! :rolleyes:

[Danksi]

I'm an Immigrant too, just another 600 odd days until I can apply for Citizenship... so I can't vote either :-(

3 years right? - 'looks at countdown widget'; 417 days :p

What makes me laugh is the way CBC is suggesting that the Canadian public has somehow got together and carefully discussed/schemed how they will punish the liberals, but not give any other party a majority government. Sooo, how does that work CBC? (it's a vote of individuals surely - and a random result)

[candan9019]

Shoot, and I just got away from a country run by neo-cons. :(

[Stella]

3 years right? - 'looks at countdown widget'; 417 days :p

What makes me laugh is the way CBC is suggesting that the Canadian public has somehow got together and carefully discussed/schemed how they will punish the liberals, but not give any other party a majority government. Sooo, how does that work CBC? (it's a vote of individuals surely - and a random result)

I think its a bit less, I've worked here on a work permit for 3 years, so I reduction of one year.

Getting back on topic, by the sounds of the results so far the Liberals have got off quite lightly ( i.e., they haven't been slaughtered ) - they could have done a lot worse, especially out east.

EDIT: I've just used the Citizenship calculator on the Immigration Canada website,
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/res-calc.html

I can apply early 2007... ( the years on the work permit brings it down by 1 year - otherwise it would have been 2008)

[joepunk]

Well, no matter. I will still want to work and live in Vancouver at some point in my young youthful life.

What are the chances of having another Vote of No Confidence happening within the next few years?

[yg17]

Sigh.

The conservatives will
- [expletive deleted] the cities.
- cut public services.
- [expletive deleted] over the poor.
- send Canadian troops to needless conflicts ( and thus eating up taxes instead of spending the money on the greater good ).

Just like your neighbors to the south. We'll be like best friends now!

[dornoforpyros]

George Bush Light!

I just hope we get to keep our gay marriages & semi-legal pot


edit:Am I the only one who finds the picture of Stephen Harper on the CBC website to be really funny?

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/notes/images/CON.jpg

[Chundles]

The New Prime Minister of Canada.
http://www.rjohnwright.com/images/chronology/pinocchio/pinocchio.jpg

Policies:

- To stuff up cities.
- To stuff up Public Services.
- To stuff up progressive thinking.
- To one day become a real boy.
- To stuff up human rights.

[neocell]

Well, no matter. I will still want to work and live in Vancouver at some point in my young youthful life.

What are the chances of having another Vote of No Confidence happening within the next few years?
Very high. Pretty much no minority government has lasted more than 2 years, so hopefully he can't do too much damage

[solvs]

So much for maybe moving up North. At least you guys aren't as bad off as we are (yet). Ironic that we might be more liberal than you guys soon. First in '06, then in '08. Yeah, I know, and then I woke up. But here's hoping!

Seriously though, anyone else think that this is just one more step towards the coming apocalypse?

[CanadaRAM]

What are the chances of having another Vote of No Confidence happening within the next few years?
Oh, pretty much 100%...

[Stella]

Despite a conservative government, we can thank our blessing that the Prime Minister isn't the religious whack job that you have to suffer with down in down south.

Moving up north still isn't so bad!

So much for maybe moving up North. At least you guys aren't as bad off as we are (yet). Ironic that we might be more liberal than you guys soon. First in '06, then in '08. Yeah, I know, and then I woke up. But here's hoping!

Seriously though, anyone else think that this is just one more step towards the coming apocalypse?

[Lyle]

Just curious as a neighbor from the (deep) south: Will there be the protests of voter fraud that we've seen from the losing party after the last two U.S. elections, or are Canadians more or less confident that their election system "works" (regardless of whether they like the outcome)?

[dornoforpyros]

Just curious as a neighbor from the (deep) south: Will there be the protests of voter fraud that we've seen from the losing party after the last two U.S. elections, or are Canadians more or less confident that their election system "works" (regardless of whether they like the outcome)?


No we're pretty confident in the system, if the race is really close (less than 100 votes or something) then they do a recount, but basically all our counting is done by hand and our ballets are pretty straight forward, no machines involved (or atleast none of the times I voted).

[Lyle]

... basically all our counting is done by hand and our ballets are pretty straight forward, no machines involved (or atleast none of the times I voted).Very interesting; I didn't realize that Canada didn't use "voting machines".

[candan9019]

Just curious as a neighbor from the (deep) south: Will there be the protests of voter fraud that we've seen from the losing party after the last two U.S. elections, or are Canadians more or less confident that their election system "works" (regardless of whether they like the outcome)?

Our PM is always the leader of the party with the most seats in parliment, so the party that governs is going to have a majority of the popular vote as well.

No electoral college here!:p

[Danksi]

Very interesting; I didn't realize that Canada didn't use "voting machines".

Also, if a vote is split to within a certain percentage, a recount is automatically carried out - regardless of whether or not a party demands a recount.

There seemed to be a few tight votes last night, without 50 votes of 1000's, which were automatically recounted to be sure. Just goes to show that every vote counts at the end of the day.

[Raid]

I'm a little disappointed to, but I'm consoled by the fact that their minority government will have a very tough go of it... I'm predicting a no-confidence vote in 12-18 months. Harper won't be able to do too much damage to our civil rights, troops, or the tax paying lower and middle classes because the support just isn't there. The Bloc is their closest political alignment and they really don't hold much in common with the Conservative party.

What we really need is a new party, cause nothing I'm seeing is all that great. When voters go to the polls always thinking of voting in 'the lesser of all evils' ... that's just not good.

Liberals- Lets face it they were busted dipping into the cookie jar for themselves...I'm not saying that they're the only party to do this, but they got nabbed. (Maybe they'll learn from the conservatives on how to hide it better) They've done some good things, but simply put they have proven themselves as corrupt and untrustworthly as the rest.

Conservatives-A head full of wrong ideas in my opinion. They hand out cash rather than direct it to programs because it gives everybody (including the rich) a taste of the crumbs. This election they promised $1200 for each kid under 6 to 'supplement' daycare... while that would only cover a month of day care (maybe 2 outside of the cities) do you really think that a person at the top tax bracket needs that money? Would it even go to daycare? Then there's the selling off of assets and giving everything to private concerns, they always tell us it will mean we spend less..... I don't think that's happened in my life time.

NDP-I can't really say much about these guys, because they don't offer much of a platform. Layton is a good man but his party needs a solid direction that's different from the Liberal power house... at least the Liberals had a red book they could show us.

Bloc-To put it simply, they represent the Québécois who are upset with the rest of Canada or those Québécois who feel the Bloc will look out only for them. (Which is why I guess they are more associated with the right of the political spectrum) However the party exists only in Québéc and would only get seats in Québéc thus it is doomed to only serve as a thorn (needed or not) in the side of the government.

Green-Well these guys started out with a good idea, but they are so myopic everything becomes an environmental issue, they don’t even have enough candidates to fill all ridings. I’ve heard a theory that they only aim for 5% of the popular vote so they can get their $5 Million in funding to support lobbyists…

I think it's time we had a hard look at our democracy and the way things are run. Harper was right, it is time for a change...but the system needs more than just a fresh coat of white-wash.

[aloofman]

It was interesting to hear (CBC earlier) that there are no Conservative seats in any of the three biggest cities in Canada.


Welcome to our world, where the back-country masses pretend that they aren't part of "big government."

[plinden]

Our PM is always the leader of the party with the most seats in parliment, so the party that governs is going to have a majority of the popular vote as well.

No electoral college here!:p
Sorry for being so ignorant ... so, the NDP, BQ and libs couldn't form a coalition? (Assuming they are even close enough in policies to do so)

[bitfactory]

Welcome to our world, where the back-country masses pretend that they aren't part of "big government."

back-country?

[blackfox]

I think this is very interesting, coming from an American perspective.

First of all, I find it rather amusing to be looking at individual Canadian citizen reaction(s) to the ascension of a Conservative government in their country - instead of them looking (amusedly) at us.

Secondly, ( and more interestingly ), I do wonder of the relative merits of the two systems of Democracy our countries adhere to. While a great many of you seem relieved that under the Canadian system, at least this new government will be a minority one - subject to compromise, is this an improvement over our system or not?

On one hand, many of us here in the US would probably love to have had the Bush administration be a minority government - forced to form compromises and coalitions with other parties - as it would've indeed curbed some of their excesses, but how does such a system actually get much done?

I say this because I was recently reading about Mexico, who is gearing up for it's own Elections this year. They also have a similar system of governance - and in their case, the minority Government (headed by Fox) was unable to get much meaningful accomplished as consensus and coalitions proved impossible to forge because of entrenched party and personal ideological positions. As such, it is relatively unlikely that PAN will win reelection with it's candidate, because of widespread perceptions that Fox (and PAN) governed ineffectively. So perhaps another party will assume the Presidency (the PRI or PRD), again with a minority government, to have the same thing happen all over again.

I use the Mexican example as it seem a particularily stark example of the inherent problems of that system - though many other examples abound - both good and bad.

This is not to say, however, that I find this system inferior to the US system, I am just curious as to people's perceptions on this matter in the wake of these Elections.

The US system, as the past years have borne out (especially the recent past), have proved somewhat more effective of getting some things done (quality excepted) - and if the system was not as broken as it is, perhaps a great deal more.

opinions? Am I being too horribly tangental?

[Thanatoast]

No we're pretty confident in the system, if the race is really close (less than 100 votes or something) then they do a recount, but basically all our counting is done by hand and our ballets are pretty straight forward, no machines involved (or atleast none of the times I voted).
Wow, imagine that. Put an "x" next to the candidate you want and hand it to somebody who counts it.

I've always wondered what an effective, efficient, backed-by-paper-evidence balloting system would look like. And it's reliable, you say? Even with all those analog-style pens being used? What if one runs out of ink? Wouldn't be better to have a buggy, unsecure and expensive touch-screen system that has no valid hardcapy backup to ensure the count?

[skunk]

our ballets are pretty straight forwardYour version of Swan Lake is certainly uncomplicated.

[bitfactory]

I think this is very interesting, coming from an American perspective.

First of all, I find it rather amusing to be looking at individual Canadian citizen reaction(s) to the ascension of a Conservative government in their country - instead of them looking (amusedly) at us.

Secondly, ( and more interestingly ), I do wonder of the relative merits of the two systems of Democracy our countries adhere to. While a great many of you seem relieved that under the Canadian system, at least this new government will be a minority one - subject to compromise, is this an improvement over our system or not?

On one hand, many of us here in the US would probably love to have had the Bush administration be a minority government - forced to form compromises and coalitions with other parties - as it would've indeed curbed some of their excesses, but how does such a system actually get much done?

The US system, as the past years have borne out (especially the recent past), have proved somewhat more effective of getting some things done (quality excepted) - and if the system was not as broken as it is, perhaps a great deal more.

opinions? Am I being too horribly tangental?

Great post, blackfox. But I'm afraid it doesn't have enough hyperbole to fit in with the rest of this thread.

[freeny]

Looks like you two voted in line with me.

I too am a little disappointed in this outcome, but be thankful it is not a majority. That would be scary.
That would make it just like US! You lucky bastards!;)

[rickvanr]

Wow, imagine that. Put an "x" next to the candidate you want and hand it to somebody who counts it.

I've always wondered what an effective, efficient, backed-by-paper-evidence balloting system would look like. And it's reliable, you say? Even with all those analog-style pens being used? What if one runs out of ink? Wouldn't be better to have a buggy, unsecure and expensive touch-screen system that has no valid hardcapy backup to ensure the count?

Where I voted, we used a tiny pencil like you'd get from a minigolf course.

[aloofman]

On one hand, many of us here in the US would probably love to have had the Bush administration be a minority government - forced to form compromises and coalitions with other parties - as it would've indeed curbed some of their excesses, but how does such a system actually get much done?


The U.S. system was designed to make sure a government couldn't do too much. The idea was that the various branches (and their respective limitations) would prevent each other from doing extreme things that the people would object to. To pass new laws politicians would have to jump through hoops, passing a bill in the raucous House that reflects popular mood swings, and then the more collegiate Senate, and a president with a wider constituency. Gridlock was actually what they had in mind, with the somewhat optimistic idea that only the really great laws would withstand the rigors of the system.

The debate over a parliamentary system vs. a presidential system will probably rage on forever. Americans can't really imagine voting for a party and not a person, even though they effectively do that all the time.

[aloofman]

back-country?

Tongue slightly in cheek.

[blackfox]

The U.S. system was designed to make sure a government couldn't do too much. The idea was that the various branches (and their respective limitations) would prevent each other from doing extreme things that the people would object to. To pass new laws politicians would have to jump through hoops, passing a bill in the raucous House that reflects popular mood swings, and then the more collegiate Senate, and a president with a wider constituency. Gridlock was actually what they had in mind, with the somewhat optimistic idea that only the really great laws would withstand the rigors of the system.

The debate over a parliamentary system vs. a presidential system will probably rage on forever. Americans can't really imagine voting for a party and not a person, even though they effectively do that all the time.
I understand this, and you are most certainly correct.

I posted not so much to debate the intrinsic merits/pitfalls of each system as a theory of governance, but to ask what actual citizen perceptions are of the reality of living and participating in such a system.

I just thought it might be interesting, if only to me.

[Counterfit]

Wow, imagine that. Put an "x" next to the candidate you want and hand it to somebody who counts it.

I've always wondered what an effective, efficient, backed-by-paper-evidence balloting system would look like. And it's reliable, you say? Even with all those analog-style pens being used? What if one runs out of ink? Wouldn't be better to have a buggy, unsecure and expensive touch-screen system that has no valid hardcapy backup to ensure the count?
That's what I like about the scanner systems we use in RI (and elsewhere). Just mark the ballot, and put it in the machine. If it breaks, there's still the paper you marked.

[candan9019]

Sorry for being so ignorant ... so, the NDP, BQ and libs couldn't form a coalition? (Assuming they are even close enough in policies to do so)

Yes, but they wouldn't be the governing party. What I meant was the single party with the most seats governs. So if all the other parties were against something the opposition would be larger than the governing party and it wouldn't pass.

I should add that this is a minority government, if the Cons had a majority (more than all the other parties combined) than they could do more of what they want.

[kwajo.com]

Sorry for being so ignorant ... so, the NDP, BQ and libs couldn't form a coalition? (Assuming they are even close enough in policies to do so)


they could in theory deny the confidence of the Conservative leader and another person could be chosen to serve as PM, but they would be on incredibly shaky ground politically, and it would never work.

on a side note, for your own benefit, the Bloc Quebecois isn't for allying with anyone unless it results in Quebec getting something bigger in return

[MarkCollette]

3 years right? - 'looks at countdown widget'; 417 days :p

What makes me laugh is the way CBC is suggesting that the Canadian public has somehow got together and carefully discussed/schemed how they will punish the liberals, but not give any other party a majority government. Sooo, how does that work CBC? (it's a vote of individuals surely - and a random result)

During an election campaign, the public are regularly polled, and the results published. Voters then adjust their voting preference throughout the campaign, creating feedback loops, which tend to stabilise before the actual election.

This works because only so many people have a rigid political alignment, and the majority of voters would accept voting for more than one candidate of the given 5+ choices. Our voters here are strategic.

This is a dimension to elections that simply does not exist in a two party system, such as the USA. Historically, when Canada had only two or three choices, we were not as stategic, but with the gains of the NDP, the introduction of the Bloc, and the fracturing of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party (they haves since reintegrated), and the slight rise of the Greens, Canada has become noticeably more of a multi-party system over the past few decades.

Also, because of the Parliamentary system, where one must vote for their Member of Parliament, and factor in that MP's personal stances, the party's platform, and the leader of that party's stances, which tend not to exactly line up, we are much more accustomed to complex and strategic decision making in our voting.

So, the CBC is in fact correct.

[MarkCollette]

Liberals- Lets face it they were busted dipping into the cookie jar for themselves...I'm not saying that they're the only party to do this, but they got nabbed. (Maybe they'll learn from the conservatives on how to hide it better) They've done some good things, but simply put they have proven themselves as corrupt and untrustworthly as the rest.

All major political parties are corrupt. Introducing a new one would change nothing. The difference is the degree and type of corruption, which you can affect with your voting decisions, specifically before a general election, when you can vote for who the candidates will be.



NDP-I can't really say much about these guys, because they don't offer much of a platform. Layton is a good man but his party needs a solid direction that's different from the Liberal power house... at least the Liberals had a red book they could show us.

Bloc-To put it simply, they represent the Québécois who are upset with the rest of Canada or those Québécois who feel the Bloc will look out only for them. (Which is why I guess they are more associated with the right of the political spectrum) However the party exists only in Québéc and would only get seats in Québéc thus it is doomed to only serve as a thorn (needed or not) in the side of the government.

Green-Well these guys started out with a good idea, but they are so myopic everything becomes an environmental issue, they don’t even have enough candidates to fill all ridings. I’ve heard a theory that they only aim for 5% of the popular vote so they can get their $5 Million in funding to support lobbyists…


Some of your descriptions are quite facile, or outright wrong (the Greens have fielded candidates in all ridings for the last couple elections). Please limit your executive summaries to topics you have some knowledge in. Or, better yet, actually read the party platforms of the NDP, Bloc, and Greens.

[MarkCollette]

On one hand, many of us here in the US would probably love to have had the Bush administration be a minority government - forced to form compromises and coalitions with other parties - as it would've indeed curbed some of their excesses, but how does such a system actually get much done?


The campaign promises of the Conservative can be broken into two categories, reducing corruption, and everything else. I think that them being handed a minority is the voters way of saying that the assume all parties are on board for reducing corruption, and so that legislation will pass, but as for the other issues, that will require quite disparate groups to work together, so hopefully only the initiative that most Canadians would agree on will pass.

Also, for many, this is a timeout period for the Liberals to be punished. In that case, we don't necessarily want the people in power to do much, for the time being.

[Raid]

All major political parties are corrupt. Introducing a new one would change nothing. The difference is the degree and type of corruption, which you can affect with your voting decisions, specifically before a general election, when you can vote for who the candidates will be.I agree to a point, but that's a defeatist attitude. Why can't we get a party that will change the system?

Some of your descriptions are quite facile, or outright wrong (the Greens have fielded candidates in all ridings for the last couple elections). Please limit your executive summaries to topics you have some knowledge in. Or, better yet, actually read the party platforms of the NDP, Bloc, and Greens.Well let me turn the cheek here then, I do stand corrected about the green party not representing all ridings (I thought they were missing representitives in Central Canada and parts of Ontario/Québéc). Perhaps you want to re-read my statment as a brief summary of what's wrong with those parties... while I could provide a multitude of examples I decided to keep it short and fairly current. :rolleyes:

[aloofman]

Also, because of the Parliamentary system, where one must vote for their Member of Parliament, and factor in that MP's personal stances, the party's platform, and the leader of that party's stances, which tend not to exactly line up, we are much more accustomed to complex and strategic decision making in our voting.


You're wrong to claim that Americans don't vote strategically. Many voters choose based on their candidate's personality and his/her relationship to the bigger party platform. And many voters like to split their tickets, voting for a senator and congressman from different parties, for example, or a governor and a state legislator.

[blackfox]

Found it noteworthy that Canada's voting turnout was around 65%.

To those keeping score, that's better than the US's 60% in 2004 (which was pretty good for us), but generally worse than most European Countries (as an average - although I believe UK turnout in 1999 was in the mid - 50% range)

Not that this means a damn thing necessarily - except, of course the things it does. Way to be Civic-minded, Canada!

[MarkCollette]

I agree to a point, but that's a defeatist attitude. Why can't we get a party that will change the system?

I guess I didn't elaborate enough. You have to divide problems you have with a party into two categories:

A. Ideology
B. Performance/vision/implementation

If there are zero parties that represent your ideology, then by all means, make a new party. But, if it's just how they're carrying out their tasks, then the solution is not a new party, but rather internal reform and change within the party that best represents your ideology.

So, I wasn't saying that the situation is hopeless, just that the solution of creating a new party is pretty close to hopeless.



Well let me turn the check here then, I do stand corrected about the green party not representing all ridings (I thought they were missing representitives in Central Canada and parts of Ontario/Québéc). Instead of insulting me perhaps you want to re-read my statment as a brief summary of what's wrong with those parties... while I could provide a multitude of examples I decided to keep it short and fairly current. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I guess I was more emotionally responding to your negativity towards the NDP and Greens. I went to a debate between the candidates in my riding, and was quite impressed with the Green and NDP candidates. Plus, I personally know individuals, in the Green party and in the NDP, who do a lot of good in helping this whole system work. To hear them simply dismissed, with no reason that I in any way agree with, seemed uninformed.

The NDP have a completely comprehensive platform. Go to: http://www.ndp.ca/platform. As well, the CBC website had each major election issue covered by the position of each major party. So, saying they lack a Red Book equivalent makes just about zero sense.

The Bloc has served as the Official Opposition on several occasions, so I'm not sure how they are doomed to only serve as a thorn in the side of the government. The system works because we have legitimate opposition. In the USA there is endless debate about federalism versus states rights. The Bloc clearly represents states (provincial) rights, and so affects every province. For example, Quebec gaining more control of its resources leads to the Maritimes gaining more control over its natural resources.

True, the Greens focus on the environment more than anything, but in a multi-party system, that is not a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with knowing you'll never run the government, but using the position you do have to affect the change that you feel is necessary. I'm sure they'd like to get seats, but in the absence of that, who would blame them for using lobbyists?

[MarkCollette]

You're wrong to claim that Americans don't vote strategically. Many voters choose based on their candidate's personality and his/her relationship to the bigger party platform. And many voters like to split their tickets, voting for a senator and congressman from different parties, for example, or a governor and a state legislator.

Hehehe, I didn't mean that Americans don't vote strategically at all, it's just that you don't have to vote as strategically. Let me explain. In the USA, you have separate elections for President, Congress, and Senators (Ignoring State level elections, like I'm ignoring Provincial, etc.). In Canada, we only vote for our Member of Parliament, which in the aggregate decides the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints Senators. So, Americans have more opportunities to vote than Canadians, each of which can be done strategically, I guess giving them more opportunities to vote strategically than us. But, that means, when us Canadians do vote that one time, we have to factor in all of these things into one single vote, and so that vote has to be super-strategic.

[aloofman]

Hehehe, I didn't mean that Americans don't vote strategically at all, it's just that you don't have to vote as strategically. Let me explain. In the USA, you have separate elections for President, Congress, and Senators (Ignoring State level elections, like I'm ignoring Provincial, etc.). In Canada, we only vote for our Member of Parliament, which in the aggregate decides the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints Senators. So, Americans have more opportunities to vote than Canadians, each of which can be done strategically, I guess giving them more opportunities to vote strategically than us. But, that means, when us Canadians do vote that one time, we have to factor in all of these things into one single vote, and so that vote has to be super-strategic.

Gotcha.

[Agent Smith]

Just curious as a neighbor from the (deep) south: Will there be the protests of voter fraud that we've seen from the losing party after the last two U.S. elections, or are Canadians more or less confident that their election system "works" (regardless of whether they like the outcome)?

No. We have a multiparty system up here which follows a "first past the post" system of winning a seat. While this is essentially the same in the US, the utter dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties makes the US a de facto two party system, which pretty much eliminates the "first past the post".

"First past the post" means that the person with the most votes gets elected, regardless of whether or not they have the majority of the votes. Of a total of 20 votes, one candidate might only get 9, but the remaining 11 votes would be split up between the other candidates.

Once the polling stations close, the votes are counted, a process that is a.) run by a non-partisan body; b.) scrutineered by representatives of all of the candidates in that riding. That, and we are only 10% of the population of the US. It makes counting votes much easier. :)

[maya]

Not that I voted either L or C, however since the L has been in power for 12 years they were loosing focus. With C to over throw them after such a long time I believe might not be beneficial, however*will teach the L to get back into the game. :)

[eRondeau]

Let the flaming begin...

I voted Conservative yesterday, and my candidate won my riding. My choice was not so much because I like or even respect Stephen Harper, but because I simply don't trust the Liberals anymore (and my local Liberal candidate was a goof.) I personally saw no progress of any kind under Paul Martin... just a bunch of wealthy old men playing their political games day in and day out. At least the PC's are a much younger party, with good local candidates, and lots of new ideas. And although I strongly disagree with some of Harper's agenda -- in balance, he seemed like the only choice to lead the country in a forward direction. The NDP will never be more than a fringe party on the federal level, and their core supporters, the union members, are a dying breed. And the Green Party makes for a good protest vote, period. So as far as I was concerned, the choice was clear: Move ahead, or go around in circles. I voted to move ahead.

It will be very interesting to see just who gets into bed with who, now that the Minority has flipped. Minority governments in Canada traditionally average 18-months (Martin had 17-months) and as long as Harper doesn't completely screw-up, he'll probably win a decent Majority next time around.

[MarkCollette]

Not that I voted either L or C, however since the L has been in power for 12 years they were loosing focus.

Aha! You're actually an American impersonating a Canadian! How do I know? Americans always spell lose as loose :)

/Not saying Americans are poor spellers, they're just incapable of spelling lose :D

[solvs]

Will there be the protests of voter fraud that we've seen from the losing party after the last two U.S. elections, or are Canadians more or less confident that their election system "works" (regardless of whether they like the outcome)?
Not sure what you're getting at, but just as a side note I used to live in WA state. In our last election Dino Rossi appeared to win, but after a recount, Christine Gregoire actually did. Can't say I liked either one of them, but if no one had protested, the person who really won wouldn't have been the new Governor. For the record, I also supported his bid for a re-recount just to make sure she did actually win. Does make me wonder about our electoral process, and it should you as well.

Let the flaming begin...
Can't blame you, especially under the circumstances. If you are well aware of the issues and voted your conscience, or at least who you felt was the lesser of evils, no one should fault you. Even if most of us here may disagree.

Though I doubt most of us here even like the liberals, as much as we dislike the conservatives.

[KD7IWP]

I'm stoked. This has to be the best thing to happen to Canada in 40 years or so. I wouldn't mind not paying 14% sales tax anymore, those Americans have it nice. Funny how I hear Americans complaining about wanting a health system like we have. My grandpa here needed a knee replacement and after waiting two years he finally got the chance to schedule the surgery which was a speedy year away. I know people that die here because they cannot get to the doctor in time. You think perscription drugs are cheap here eh? Well, we pay for it, nothing is free. I wouldn't pay for cable TV if I didn't own a TV and I wouldn't pay for DSL if I didn't have a computer, so why am I paying all these liberal "programs" that I don't use? I think I can manage my money better than the government, so I don't want these socialists taking it all away from me and doing what they will. I would like to see Harper have a Majority government so that he can actually get his agenda accomplished. Sure would be nice to have set term limits, yes? Doesn't make sense that you can call an election whenever you want because you think you are doing well. And who was the guy that decided that we have a senate that is appointed? So you get a bad Prime Minister and he appoints all his buddies to the senate for life, when they have no idea about federal politics, and there they go. Take the Vancouver mayor for example. Good friend/donater to Paul Martin and now he's off to Ottowa for life, that scares me. I wish we could elect all our leaders like the Americans.
Anyway, I wish people could be a little more optimistic. I am expecting a lot from Harper and I am requiring him to do his part in doing what he said. I'll give him a chance and I have no doubt that he, or anyone for that matter, can do better than Paul Martin.

[dornoforpyros]

Your version of Swan Lake is certainly uncomplicated.

:p lol and this is why I don't get to write press releases (or much of anything) at work

[solvs]

Funny how I hear Americans complaining about wanting a health system like we have. My grandpa here needed a knee replacement and after waiting two years he finally got the chance to schedule the surgery which was a speedy year away. I know people that die here because they cannot get to the doctor in time. You think perscription drugs are cheap here eh? Well, we pay for it, nothing is free. I wouldn't pay for cable TV if I didn't own a TV and I wouldn't pay for DSL if I didn't have a computer, so why am I paying all these liberal "programs" that I don't use? I think I can manage my money better than the government, so I don't want these socialists taking it all away from me and doing what they will.
Your system isn't perfect, but ours is far from it. After you get laid off and get sick and can't afford medical insurance, you'll see why those programs you don't care about are there. Look at how things were in America before the New Deal and you'll see how bad it was for some people and for how bad it could be if things keep going the way they are. You may die before you get your pension, you may never use a public park, or bus, or certain roads. You may never have children and wonder why you have to pay for schools. Or never have to call the fire dept or police. But that's not how society works. Don't like how your tax dollars are being spent? Seek to change it. Just don't think that you aren't responsible for the welfare of your fellow countrymen as they are for you, because that's kinda selfish. ;)

[MarkCollette]

Sure would be nice to have set term limits, yes? Doesn't make sense that you can call an election whenever you want because you think you are doing well. And who was the guy that decided that we have a senate that is appointed? So you get a bad Prime Minister and he appoints all his buddies to the senate for life, when they have no idea about federal politics, and there they go. Take the Vancouver mayor for example. Good friend/donater to Paul Martin and now he's off to Ottowa for life, that scares me. I wish we could elect all our leaders like the Americans.


Unfortunately, having term limits does not actually solve anything, and can cause more problems. In Canada, assuming a majority government, they can time the election to the performance of the economy, and public opinion. Witness years ago when Jean Cretien called an election after only 3 years, before a recession hit, while things were still going good. Sounds like a good reason for term limits, right? Well, in the USA, there's always a spike in the economy one or two months before the election. Why? Because the government manipulates the macro-economic factors in the system to induce a jump, which tends to cause a fall-off later. The question becomes, would you prefer a system that times the market, or one that manipulates the market?

The way our Senators are appointed is pretty archaic, but it does have its reasons, if only historically.

One of the problems with a democracy is that the people can vote themselves money, even if it would be quite bad for the country. Witness the tens of billions of dollars that all of the major parties promised during elections, almost all of which could lead to deficits, especially if something bad and unexpected happens. Luckily, politicians seldom keep their promises, so hopefully all that money won't get spent. Anyways, the purpose of an unelected senate is to have people in place who are not answerable to the whims of the mob.

In a healthy democracy, one would expect the party in charge to change somewhat frequently, so it makes sense that senators are appointed for life, otherwise they would get unappointed every election, and lose the point of being a separate house. In theory, since there's a maximum number of senators, and they only get changed when old ones die or retire, it shouldn't be possible to stack the deck. But, when we leave one party in charge for over a decade at a time, then we mess that up.

When senators are appointed for life, it allows them to weather out fads that come and go. Depending on your political slant, you could appreciate that in regards to the rise of socialist groups in the past, or neo-conservative groups in the present. In Canada, in 2002, the Senate released its report on Cannabis, which paved the way for future efforts of decriminalisation. Whether you agree with this or not, consider how impossible that would be in the USA, given elected Senators.

It seems that what annoys people, in Canada, with our Senators, the most, is not so much that they don't vote how we wish, but they seem not to show up to work, and are dodging their responsibilities. For any form of Senate recall, I would only support it based on how well the Senator has done their job, but would in no way support recall based on public opinion, or anyone's opinion, for that matter.

In short, I support limited, carefully thought out Senate reform, but I reject the majority of the Conservatives' American-wannabe proposals, given their obvious flaws.

[MacNut]

The best thing would be to have an independent party system where as everyone thinks for themselves and not how the party wants you to think. The worst thing is people voting party lines and not how there gut tells them to vote. If independent voices were elected then the left and the right would not push there ideals onto the country instead it would be a neutral balance doing what's best for the people and not what's best for the party. Think of it like umpires at a baseball game, they call balls and strikes not what the team wants them to call.

[quigleybc]

Man, I wish this thread was around before I voted...

I moved here from the U.S two years ago (born canadian, grew up in U.S) and I still don't know enough about Canadian politics..and I'm ashamed to admit it, but I won't lie about it..

Questions. Why are the Conservatives called "tory" what is a tory?
Question. Why do we have a marijuana party?

Question. How does the majority, minority thing work...? If the conervatives have the minority, who has the majority? anyone?

I should have done more research, but I didn't, but I did get out and vote. I voted liberal because I saw P martin as a Canadian Clinton, ya he had a scandal, but was it really that big of a deal? at least compared to what Harper might do now, kind of like how Clinton got head, and people where all upset about that, but compared to the maddness of king George, it is pale in comparison..bad analogy, but it's what I came up with while I was standing there with my mini golf pencil in hand...

Also, who are the Libertarians? I almost voted for them, because I thought they were the Liberals...

Let me save you the flame, I know nothing, and have a lot of learning to do...

But at least i voted...:o

[MarkCollette]

The best thing would be to have an independent party system where as everyone thinks for themselves and not how the party wants you to think. The worst thing is people voting party lines and not how there gut tells them to vote. If independent voices were elected then the left and the right would not push there ideals onto the country instead it would be a neutral balance doing what's best for the people and not what's best for the party. Think of it like umpires at a baseball game, they call balls and strikes not what the team wants them to call.

I agree, in theory, but how would it scale? Individuals would tend to coalesce into similar groups, for efficiency, when brokering many deals over the years. Because these groups are adhoc, it would be hard to predict what actual legislation would get passed, at election time. I would expect a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of mad citizens as their country goes in directions that they feel they have no power over, or even knowledge of.

[MacNut]

IN the US at least I think the people already feel like they don't have any power, The extreme left and extreme right control the country and the middle really has no say.

[Lyle]

Edit: Not worth it.

[MarkCollette]

Man, I wish this thread was around before I voted...

I moved here from the U.S two years ago (born canadian, grew up in U.S) and I still don't know enough about Canadian politics..and I'm ashamed to admit it, but I won't lie about it..

Hopefully a bunch of people respond, since I'm sure we'll disagree on some of these answers.


Questions. Why are the Conservatives called "tory" what is a tory?

The term Tory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory) is inherited from the British system, to describe Conservatives. The original meaning has nothing to do with anything, unless you think Conservatives are "robbers" :)


Question. Why do we have a marijuana party?

They are a protest party, that wants to make cannabis legal. In the past, no other party supported that, so they made their own party. Now, many MPs in several parties, support either legalisation, or at least decriminalisation of cannabis possession and consumption, but still usually only in small quantities.



Question. How does the majority, minority thing work...? If the conervatives have the minority, who has the majority? anyone?

In a multi-party system, like what Canada has, where there are 3+ parties, you can have a situation where the party that has the most seats still has less than a majority. Say the winner A have 40%, B has 30% and C has 30%. A has the most seats, and so is the winner, and takes control of the government. But, B and C collectively have more seats, and can pass legislation without A agreeing. In theory, B and C could make a coalition government, but usually that doesn't happen because B and C are ideologically incompatible, and choose not to form government together, prefering to only work together on individual pieces of legislation.


I should have done more research, but I didn't, but I did get out and vote. I voted liberal because I saw P martin as a Canadian Clinton, ya he had a scandal, but was it really that big of a deal? at least compared to what Harper might do now, kind of like how Clinton got head, and people where all upset about that, but compared to the maddness of king George, it is pale in comparison..bad analogy, but it's what I came up with while I was standing there with my mini golf pencil in hand...

A lot of other people felt that too. The problem is that there's no way to know what good or bad things Harper will do, us not having a time machine and all. So, some people have chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt, and voted for him, while others fear him, and so voted against him. Neither is necessarily stupid, although time will only tell who was naive.


Also, who are the Libertarians? I almost voted for them, because I thought they were the Liberals...

The Libertarians are another niche party, like the Marijuana Party, that will probably never get a seat in government. But, while they run for election, they can at least have a voice to further their views, and potentially affect others who will be in government. If you want to know more about a specific party, I recommend going to here (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=index&dir=par&lang=e&textonly=false), the Elections Canada list of political parties, which can direct you to each party's contact info.

[aloofman]

The best thing would be to have an independent party system where as everyone thinks for themselves and not how the party wants you to think. The worst thing is people voting party lines and not how there gut tells them to vote. If independent voices were elected then the left and the right would not push there ideals onto the country instead it would be a neutral balance doing what's best for the people and not what's best for the party. Think of it like umpires at a baseball game, they call balls and strikes not what the team wants them to call.

That's what the founding fathers actually had in mind, that the people would choose these wise men to represent them and debate and compromise bills as independents. It sort of did work that way for a few years, until the mid-1790s when George Washington retired and the various groups coalesced into political parties based on stronger states vs. a stronger central government. Hamilton and Adams both warned about the dangers of "factions" in the Federalist Papers and hoped that the checks and balances in the Constitution would prevent them from being too influential. So much for that.

Personally, I think anyone who votes for one party every time is a total sucker and I support almost anything that would break the party leaderships and force office-holders and -seekers to think for themselves. It's a fantasy of mine.

[MarkCollette]

IN the US at least I think the people already feel like they don't have any power, The extreme left and extreme right control the country and the middle really has no say.

Hopefully you guys can get more Independents in there. Some times it's so hard to make these kinds of changes. This past election I tried to educate people about the smaller parties, like the Greens, NDP, and Canadian Action Party. A lot did end up voting Green or NDP, but some still swung back to a main party in the final stretch.

[Counterfit]

Hopefully you guys can get more Independents in there. Some times it's so hard to make these kinds of changes. This past election I tried to educate people about the smaller parties, like the Greens, NDP, and Canadian Action Party. A lot did end up voting Green or NDP, but some still swung back to a main party in the final stretch.
I considered voting for someone other than a Republican or Democrat in '04, so I played the good little voter and looked up who was on my ballot (that was awesome) and checked out the parties. With the exception of the Libertarians, all the other parties in my state were further to the right or left than the major two.

[quigleybc]

Thanks to MarkCollete for his answers, I don't feel quite as dumb now.

I appreciate it :)

[Raid]

I guess I didn't elaborate enough. You have to divide problems you have with a party into two categories:

A. Ideology
B. Performance/vision/implementation

If there are zero parties that represent your ideology, then by all means, make a new party. But, if it's just how they're carrying out their tasks, then the solution is not a new party, but rather internal reform and change within the party that best represents your ideology.

So, I wasn't saying that the situation is hopeless, just that the solution of creating a new party is pretty close to hopeless. Well I can see your point, I guess my problem is that I like the left leaning idealology but I don't see enough unification in their policies or any of them acknowledging my sore point of revising the political structure. I think we'd be better off if we had a senate that actually had to do work and offered Canadians proportional representation of the popular vote (like the German senate for example). Not to mention rules to prevent career politicians and severe penalties for those who break the public trust.

I'm sorry, I guess I was more emotionally responding to your negativity towards the NDP and Greens. I went to a debate between the candidates in my riding, and was quite impressed with the Green and NDP candidates. Plus, I personally know individuals, in the Green party and in the NDP, who do a lot of good in helping this whole system work. No harm, no foul... I actually edited my previous post as I though it came off like I was taking it too personally. I'm not saying that the green party and NDP don't have good people working for them, but rather point out the weaknesses that prevent them from becoming major players.

The NDP platform you linked to happens to be the very same site I reviewed; to me it seems many of the points are saying "See, we're like the Liberals but better because we'll add(and/or)subtract this!". I made reference to the Liberal red book because I imagined them taking it and crossing things out and adding things like desperate students plagiarizing a term paper.

Ok that does sound mean and pretty flippant, but it's what I imagined.

You do have a point about the Bloc, but surely there's a way to better represent provincial interests, and I'm not so sure that the Bloc is really thinking about other provinces when they represent 'state' rights. When they were the official opposition I recall debates on if it was appropriate for separatists to be serving in that manner. ...and I'll stay away from the natural resources control issue... I'm from Ontario and you're in Alberta so there's bound to be a disagreement there (and that's for another thread) ;)

Highlighting the importance of environmental issues is great, and using your seat to affect change you, your party and your constituents believe in is what should be done but the green party needs to start highlighting their position on other issues. They should get a spot in the debates cause people need to hear Jim Harris speak on issues like debt and governance... I know they have these positions (again through the website), but they seem completely content to sit at the 5% and collect their 'official party status' money.

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm upset with the left parties because they can't get their acts together, and I'm opposed to the right's self serving and 'snake oil salesman' nature. :(

[MarkCollette]

Well I can see your point, I guess my problem is that I like the left leaning idealology but I don't see enough unification in their policies or any of them acknowledging my sore point of revising the political structure. I think we'd be better off if we had a senate that actually had to do work and offered Canadians proportional representation of the popular vote (like the German senate for example). Not to mention rules to prevent career politicians and severe penalties for those who break the public trust.


I totally agree. Although, on a minor note, I'm not so sure what's bad about career politicians. It takes at least a six year commitment, if not more, to become an MP. Plus, you probably have to establish a track record in some lower form of government first, taking a total of at least 12 years, which is quite a lot of time to do something, if it's not your career.


The NDP platform you linked to happens to be the very same site I reviewed; to me it seems many of the points are saying "See, we're like the Liberals but better because we'll add(and/or)subtract this!". I made reference to the Liberal red book because I imagined them taking it and crossing things out and adding things like desperate students plagiarizing a term paper.


Hehehe. Yeah, I can see that mental image too. I guess the thing is that it's easier to communicate differentials than whole ideas. It's more compressable, and in the end is what the voter wants to know.


You do have a point about the Bloc, but surely there's a way to better represent provincial interests, and I'm not so sure that the Bloc is really thinking about other provinces when they represent 'state' rights. When they were the official opposition I recall debates on if it was appropriate for separatists to be serving in that manner. ...and I'll stay away from the natural resources control issue... I'm from Ontario and you're in Alberta so there's bound to be a disagreement there (and that's for another thread) ;)

The Bloc embodies the paradox of Canadian democracy. Yet, somehow it exists, and even right now holds the balance of power in our country. Should they all be shot for treason, or allowed to run the country :) But, by the binding rules of democracy, here we are. And on their path to separation, each step they take does affect Canada as a whole, whether they intend it or not.

As for natural resources, I like the idea of the Maritimes controlling theirs. I think it makes no sense to take their money away, only to return it under the guise of transfer payments and EI programs. Instead of treating them like beggars whom we've robbed, help them be our equals. On the other hand, I don't like Quebec controlling too much, because that facilitates separation. Or maybe it would alleviate their need for separation? Who knows? Alberta has shown a tendency for misusing its resources. The oil revenues per barrel we collect are a fraction of that of most developed nations. The whole BSE thing happenned because of cutbacks to regulatory programs. It took years to fight off the government from planning to allow sour gas wells right outside of Calgary. We're talking about thousands and thousands of deaths if there was an accident! But, would I want someone else controlling all that? I don't know. It depends on how long Albertans will accept a corrupt provincial government out of their fear of the federal government.

But now, with the western regionalist Conservative party running things, and Bloc separatists holding the balance of power, I'd say we're set for a definite swing towards "states rights".


Highlighting the importance of environmental issues is great, and using your seat to affect change you, your party and your constituents believe in is what should be done but the green party needs to start highlighting their position on other issues. They should get a spot in the debates cause people need to hear Jim Harris speak on issues like debt and governance... I know they have these positions (again through the website), but they seem completely content to sit at the 5% and collect their 'official party status' money.

Part of the problem is, the Greens are simply not allowed to enter the debates. Because they have no sitting MPs, most debates are closed to them. Also, they're probably experiencing some major growing pains right now. Years ago, if you had a pulse then you could run as a Green, because they wanted somebody, anybody to run. Then they filled their full slate of candidates. This election, the Green guy was noticeably better than the last one, so I think they're in a phase now of improving their running slate. In that situation, it's kind of hard to nail down policy. When I was a Progressive Conservative, I remember them having all these policy meetings. Then they changed leadership, and that was out the window. Then they merged, and out the window again. I assume they're in a similar situation. I've read their stuff online, and they have a lot of issues they address, but with a party that could elect at most a handful of candidates, who cares what their platform is? The only thing that matters is what your local candidate thinks.


So I guess what I'm saying is I'm upset with the left parties because they can't get their acts together, and I'm opposed to the right's self serving and 'snake oil salesman' nature. :(

One doesn't have enough money for the polish, and one has too much :)

[MarkCollette]

Thanks to MarkCollete for his answers, I don't feel quite as dumb now.

I appreciate it :)

Thanks a lot. I hope I don't come across as a blowhard, responding to everyone's posts. :o

[aloofman]

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm upset with the left parties because they can't get their acts together, and I'm opposed to the right's self serving and 'snake oil salesman' nature. :(

Lewis Black noted that "the Democratic party is a party of no ideas, and the Republican party is the party of bad ideas."

[maya]

Aha! You're actually an American impersonating a Canadian! How do I know? Americans always spell lose as loose :)

/Not saying Americans are poor spellers, they're just incapable of spelling lose :D


Actually Canadian, its the fault of dual education systems. :( ;) :D

Good old Ontario, thinking of moving to PQ. ;)

[Lazyhound]

I'm reasonably happy with the results of the election. The Conservatives are still too leftist, but at least the Liberals didn't stay in power as I was expecting. I would have liked to have seen a better Green showing, though.

Part of the problem is, the Greens are simply not allowed to enter the debates. [...] I've read their stuff online, and they have a lot of issues they address, but with a party that could elect at most a handful of candidates, who cares what their platform is?
The other part of the problem is that they have the greatest number of outrageously stupid policies of any party. Mandatory seats for women in Parliament*? No nuclear power? Ugh.

*Actually, I don't see any explicit mention of this in the platform, it may have just been my local candidate. He had his own fair share of knuckle-dragging ideas (abolish the Canadian Forces!).

With the exception of the Libertarians, all the other parties in my state were further to the right or left than the major two.
How does one get to the right of Libertarians? :confused:

[solvs]

How does one get to the right of Libertarians? :confused:
With the exception of the Libertarians ;)

[Lazyhound]

With the exception of the Libertarians ;)
He said all other parties, with the exception of the Libertarians, were to the right or left of the Republicans/Democrats, implying that the Libertarians were either equivalent to one or somewhere between the two.

[Counterfit]

He said all other parties, with the exception of the Libertarians, were to the right or left of the Republicans/Democrats, implying that the Libertarians were either equivalent to one or somewhere between the two.
Actually, I think the Libertarians are off in their own place, doing their own thing, losing lawsuits (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/01/27/airline.ids.ap/index.html)...