Who are you voting for? (Canada)

lemonphile4 · Post by **lemonphile4** » 5/25/2004, 3:51 pm

mosaik wrote:they just basically take their dicks out and slap us in the faces everyday.

I'm trying to visualize this.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 5/25/2004, 4:02 pm

hold on... lesser of two evils?

whoa, are you in a sort of backwards way agreeing with me?

this is great :mrgreen:

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 5/25/2004, 4:03 pm

april, just imagine me getting slapped in the face with a huge rubber dildo

and paul martin is going "ELECT ME BITCH"

lemonphile4 · Post by **lemonphile4** » 5/25/2004, 4:03 pm

Tee hee!

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/25/2004, 4:08 pm

mosaik wrote:april, just imagine me getting slapped in the face with a huge rubber dildo

and paul martin is going "ELECT ME BITCH"

In which case it would have to be a tiny little floppy dildo...

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 5/25/2004, 4:09 pm

and he'd keep nervously checking his watch.

modern psychokitty · Post by **modern psychokitty** » 5/25/2004, 4:17 pm

mosaik wrote:the NDP will raise our already ridiculous corporate taxes. they'll raise personal income taxes. they'll raise all forms of taxes. and they're liable to pass more ridiculous laws like the one that says i can't speak my mind about certain issues (ie homosexuals)

actually, the NDP is apparently running on a platform of fiscal prudence. like limiting credit card interest rates to prime+5... something that would have an immediately clear benefit to cash-strapped families drowning in debt.

of course, jack layton would be found mysteriously floating up the st. lawrence if he put that into reality. big business <3 paul martin.

as for stephan harper... he's albertan. (ok, he's really from toronto, but he's been there so long he's an honourary albertan.) anyway, alberta, aka land of oil, aka northern texas. so we have a seemingly crazy extremely right-wing northern texan. all i can say is that he's brighter than bush. but i could probably say that about an actual bush too.

*waits her turn to be smacked in the face by liberal anatomy*

at least they probably all have really little dicks.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/25/2004, 4:19 pm

All politicians have small genetalia.

I mean, come on. Clinton was one of the most powerful leaders in the world, and he only had his choice between Hillary and Monica. Yikes.

lemonphile4 · Post by **lemonphile4** » 5/25/2004, 5:00 pm

Didn't Monica testify that it was the diameter of a quarter?

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/25/2004, 5:02 pm

Yeah, I'm sure he didn't pay her to say that. :roll:

Penguin Josh · Post by **Penguin Josh** » 5/25/2004, 7:40 pm

*enters, doesn't understand, leaves*

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 5/25/2004, 8:29 pm

lemonphile4 wrote:Didn't Monica testify that it was the diameter of a quarter?

skinny willie. :lol:

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 5/25/2004, 10:01 pm

The NDP here have become much more finacially prudent, infact that's the main theme right now that gary doer uses. Tightening the buckle on this years budget while funding crucial programs such as health care, education and infastructure. Manitoban farmers can't afford to see giant tax hikes, and nothing will get the NDP out faster then doing so. The conservitives on the other hand were actually LESS profitable and budget safe when they were in power. They lied to us, sold off our private telephone system, which was the most profitable in western Canada. And now they secretly wanted to sell of Manitoba Hydro which is a HUGE money maker for Manitoba. We're covered in a lot of rivers and lakes if you look at the map and pay the lowest energy prices in the world for hydro energy. Not to mention we make millions of dollars selling it to Ontario and America. And Our conservitive friends wanted to sell it for a quick tax cut. Gary Doer confronted them and said in public "Can your party honestly say right here and now, in front of all of Manitoba's citizens that you do not plan to sell Hydro? That you will not sell Manitoban's Hydro?"

Our conservitive canidate declined to comment and lost the election by a landslide.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 5/26/2004, 8:23 am

I'm debating whether or not to vote. I don't like to think of voting as voting for a party. When you go to the ballot box, it's just the names of candidates in your riding, the party names aren't even on the ballot. So when I go to vote I try to ignore national politics and think of who will best represent my riding, at least thats what I did the last time I voted (which was the first time I voted mind you).

Just a thought, what if there weren't any political parties? Just 308 men and women who are voted in, all with their own policies, thoughts and ideas, basically a type of individual soveriegnity. Would that work?

Now also, I think this country works best with a minority govt. The NDP would be horrible leading the country, but I think that a NDP/Liberal lead minority govt could do wonders, especially after the Liberals recent unveiling of their health care plan.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 5/26/2004, 8:41 am

My guess (hope?) is that we'll end up with a minority government. The Martin hasn't exactly been the most popular guy in his shortlived Prime Ministery.

Is NDP the current contender?

Dabekk · Post by **Dabekk** » 5/26/2004, 11:24 am

I will be voting for the New Democrat party simply to show the need for proportional representation. I live in a very conservative riding where the Liberals and NDP have absolutely no chance, so essentially my vote will not count. It will, however, boost the percentage of the popular vote that the NDP will get, hopefully showing the country that a party such as the NDP which has support spread fairly evenly across Canada has no chance of gaining a significant role in parliament. Right now our electoral system inherently divides the country into regions, it makes west hate east, atlantic Canada hate east, everyone hate Quebec, and Quebec hate everyone. We need an electoral system that will unite the nation, not divide it even more (since it's already very divided geographically, and so on). Furthurmore, I find it distinctly undemocratic, that some peoples' votes have more impact than mine. For example, I person in a riding where the Liberals, Conservative, and NDP all had approximately the same amount of supporst, would have for more impact with their vote than I currently do. Obviously, proportional representation also has it's flaws, and perhaps a pure proportional representation isn't the answer, but our electoral system needs serious revision. As it stands, it is undemocratic, unfair, and seriously divisive.

I should add that proportional representation also gives fringe parties (marajuna, green, etc.) an actual chance to have representation in parliment, which would add some much needed diversity.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 5/26/2004, 12:01 pm

good point. As Matt Good reminded us in his famous much music politics film. The election is called before voters in Manitoba's votes are counted. In many cases people in BC haven't even returned from the polls yet and the election is called.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 5/26/2004, 12:04 pm

there's problems no matter how we switch the system. In the current one Western Canada has almost no say in anything, and many policies only benefit ontario and quebec. But on the other hand giving western Canada an equal vote would cause certain problems because people would complain that a smaller percentage of the population has the same size vote as a larger one.

But here in Western Canada it's much like colonial times in a sense. All decisions and money is used in Eastern Canada, while we pay for it with few benefits for ourselves

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 5/26/2004, 12:17 pm

The problem with proportional representation is that a party would only need to win in the bigger cities. If you were to get 50% of the vote in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto (and the golden horseshoe from Oshawa to Niagara) and Ottawa you'd basically win the election. With the current system, if you win those cities, you might only be 1/3rd of the way to victory.

Under PR, you wouldn't have regional reps either, since the parties would appoint the members of their elected party based on the proportions, so if you have problems in your region, you might not have a rep to talk to. Even if each member of parliament was appointed to a different riding, you might have a bigshot conservative being the representative of nowhere's land Nunavut, where the values are completely different.

I personally don't think PR is the answer.

SpiritualJunkie · Post by **SpiritualJunkie** » 5/27/2004, 10:34 pm

I'd still rather see proportional gov't. Then maybe, it wouldn't be a sure thing that the Liberals or the Conservatives always get a seat. The NDP and the fringe parties would get more representation.

If I was legal to vote, I would vote NDP. I hate how the Conservatives are so right-winged. It's enough that we have Ralph Klein here not giving money to the schools...I don't wanna have to see the Cons. on a federal level. And I don't wanna go with the Liberals because things look bad for them with the whole sponsorship scandal. I wouldn't mind an NDP/Liberal coalition, though...