Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 10:25 am

LOL, we take all that from you and you'll be the first to whine ...
Or you die from you disease cause you won't have the money to pay for the health care ...

koi · Feb 25, 2004, 04:11 pm

wrong. I require a single surgey. which, provided I had not been taxed I could afford. It is a simple surgery requiring perhaps 3 days at most in the hospital. By taxes I mean this to include GST, which is a disgusting and blatant example of government lies to further fatten their wallets. 7 cents back for every, single dollar I have spent in the last 6 years... god, I'd be filthy rich. I've spent close to 10 grand in the last two years. 10,0000*o.o7=7000. that's 7000 dollars in GST. if I had not been taxed off of my paycheques I would of had more income to spend, possibly another... 4000? that means 11,0000 dollars I could afford to spend on my single operation and a yearly trip to the dentist. (I have no cavitys, I take care of myself)
numbers don't lie. that get left up to the politions.

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 05:04 pm

Do you really know how it cost 3 days in the hospital??

And in the same way, I imagine you think old people, children ,homeless, mentally deficient person who can't afford by themselves should just die in the street cause you won't participate in the same system in wich they participate ?

SVMc · Feb 25, 2004, 07:00 pm

Jack,

You are grasping at straws at this point. You are cutting and pasting single sentences out of paragraphs trying to misrepresent what I have said and accusing me of not replying to argument which I have replied to. I suggest you read the full paragraph at once to ascertain my opinion rather than random sentences which make up the paragrpah.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Originally Posted by (SVMc,)

You have decided that by your definition taxes are theft. Then you universalize theft as wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

That's how I arrived at my opinion, yes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That sentence was in the middle of the following paragraph, which was in reply to your statement arguing that there was no middle moral ground in the case of taxiation. Here is the original paragrpah as written in response to the original question:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted By (SVMc)

Well that's exactly the problem. You are incapable of creating any middle ground in your mind. In your analytical scope you believe that you have not given express permission for the government to demand taxes from you as an individual therefore the government must be committing an act of theft against you. You ignore all arguments to the contrary. If you insist on following an X = X linear equation you will get the result you want. But that's because you are only considering one variable and the problem is that more than one exist. You and the government do not exist as amorphous entities juxtaposed to each other. You and society do not exist seperate from each other. You ignore history, sociology and social psychology that inform us of how and why we have constructed societies and to what benefits and detrements. You have decided that by your definition taxes are theft. Then you universalize theft as wrong. So there are two problems first you have to be extreme enough to buy into the tax = theft equation. Then you need to employ a universal moral of theft = wrong. Many people hold a range of moderate views regarding taxiation that do not go to the extreme of total systemic tax (all income is systemically distributed) or to your extreme of no tax should exist because tax = theft. These are two extreme views at either side of the spectrum. There are many debates inbetween on method, purpose, use and distribution of taxes that are not at the margins of the argument, hence not as extreme. If you don't want to be defined as extreme then show some reflexive reasoning capabilities.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

You keep repeating that it's "extreme" yet you don't say why.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I believe I have outlined quite clearly what it is I find extreme about your views in the above paragraph. However if you are not satisfied with the response I gave above perhaps you were more or less satisfied with the one I wrote in the second part of the next paragraph following that one, here is is again:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (SVMc)

So there have to be a number of people (at least in Canada and I expect in the states) that while they may not agree with aspects of taxiation do believe it plays a role in our society as a positive enough force not to advocate it's entire decimation. That would be a moderate view (where I fall). Then there are those who advocate total taxiation and redistribution (that would be the other extreme). If the best argument you can come up with is that tax = theft = mass extortion. You've made it and you don't seem to have convinced many people, this might be symptomatic of the lack of proof you have provided. After all you are an American on a Canadian thread trying to convince Canadians that the Canadian system equates to mass extortion. I think the burden of proof is on you to make that case.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

You're repeating yourself. If you have an argument for why you think "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," is not extortion, I'd like to see it.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Please see the above two paragraphs as to why I do not think taxation is equivilant to mass extortion. Here are some further answers I have given as to why I do not see taxiation as mass extortion:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (SVMc)

A reflection of a value system in our society that assumes social responsibility for those people who for whatever reason live on the margins and need help. It has been proved by MANY people that to abandon people to self-initative when socio-economic equilibrium is non-existant will in more cases mean a deterioration in conditions and levels of povert not improve them. People need access to services regardless of income.

The fact is i do not choose to get sick, I do not choose to get injured, and whatever you synical view of the poor is most people do not choose to be poor. I think I do have recourse if I am not satisfied with service, it may not be perfect but we are not living in a despotism

In a sense yes in a sense no. If you ask me if I think the state should be able to take random sums of my means of survival I would say no and agree that this was violence because they were depriving me of my means of survial. If you ask me if that is what I think most industralized "developed" governments are doing I would argue no. I argue very much agains the use of legitimized violence and the placement of the state as the only legitimate user of violenc. However I do not equate taxiation within social responsible limits as violence

I say break the heirarchy at basic needs, we as a society have an obligation to try to provide the basic necessities for human survival and dignity as defined by the UN charter on Human Rights and measured by the UN Human Development Index. Typically these services are provided to the poorest in society via some sort of administered tax, it may be the worst system we have come up with, except for all the others. FYI, governments do control food via farm subsidies and price flooring as well as the administration of food banks. Restaurants need to be licenced here, and are graded on a three point level scale administered by the government. Some provinces have public health care, and while I am not in favour of government run media, our current CBC is being much more unbiased than our one family conglomerate that controls ALL of our other broadcast Media (Can-West Global). I'm not advocating all of these controls, I recognize controls can, have and are corrupt in some areas, but I don't think that that is a reason to unilaterally do away with them. You have proposed no situations that would provide for the worlds poorest in your arguments. I can't eat freedom.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Those can all be viewed from their original posts in the original context.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

What's the difference between a) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," where 'a' is the IRS and 'b' is the Mafia?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

See above arguments on same topic. Simply because I don't agree with you does not mean I have not responded to you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

You accused me of being extreme. I didn't accuse you of being extreme.I asked how you can claim my view is extreme while refusing to say why yours is not?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes I did accuse you of being extreme. And here is you accusing me of being extreme:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

Uh . . YOU advocate that, not me. Why aren't YOU the extremist??
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And I believe I have answered that in the all or nothing contexts I have outlined numerous times.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

Since when is reality transformed by majority opinion?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I never claimed that "reality" is transformed by "majority" opinion. First of all because I don't believe in an empirical "reality" which is seperate from ourselves and not socially constructed and secondly because I don't believe in cohesive majorities. What I did argue is that we would be seeing very different behaviour from the population ie: riots, revolution, Boston tea paries (added) if it was a more commonly held opinion or a majority opinon (seperate from the idea of majority groupings) that tax = mass extortion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

Where or when did I ask you to consider my credentials, here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You didn't I just check eveyone's credentials if they are freely supplied (which you did). I will also hold someone who claims to have an academic background to an academic standard higher than someone who has no academic background or some kid who is just posting thier version of an op. ed. peice.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

Claiming a bunch of other people agree with you does not qualify as a "citation."
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Citation goes to credibility. If you want to be crediable source your work. It is standard academic practice not even a year one university student would object to. And no claimina a bunch of people agree with you does not qualify as citation providing others with enough access to sources which you think are credible so that people can go there and read the articles or books and judge for them seleves is citation. So for example saying Mr. X agrees with me is not a citation. But saying Mr. X published Y book and I think it is very reliable gives me enough information to go look it up. Full citations can also include full bibliographical refrences, personalized foot notes or end notes. If you would like me to include those for the books I provided I can do so. But first you could at least provide one source, unless you are simply going on opinion. In which case you've stated it clearly and I've stated clearly that I disagree.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originallly Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

You asked me for proof that some hospitals in the United States treat people who have no insurance. I provided it. You didn't ackowledge that you had been misled.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This was exactly my response to the article that you posted:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (SVMc)

While that link is welcome to see because it demonstrates that there are some things being done; the problem is that it is the last paragraph in an article that pre-empts itself with the discription of a boy who received treatment after being thrown 230 ft. when impacted by a car, the quality of the level 1 trauma unit and a burn centre. All of which constitute life or limb conditions for treatment. Furthermore it tells us nothing about the prevelence of this occurance in any other region. How many Americans have access to primary and preventative care? Under what conditions? Provided by whom?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

In otherwords it did not provide any information for me to make a judgement on if I had been mislead about the American Medical System. One clinic, and one case in one clinic does not read as a case for equal access to health care in cases that are not life or limb qualifiers.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb)

I offered you a compromise, that I would not oppose state-sponsored health care for all if it were funded by taxing corporations. You didn't even acknowledge my offer.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This was my response to your offer after you denied my first response as a "straw man of capitalism"

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Originally Posted by (SVMc)

I fail to see how this is drastically different from the current private health care system. So I fail to see how this is not a private enterprise solution that would exclude the poorest elements of society from obtaining health care, and would most definately let certain economically priviledged individuals receive better health care than others. Hence the comment about capitilist driven interests being counter intutive to universal coverage. First of all how would a state tax a corporation for providing health coverage to all people? Why would a corporation be inclined to offer health care to all people if they would have to service people who could not pay them? If they had to service people who could not pay them (the free rider problem) then wouldn't the fees have to go up for the people who could pay them to compensate for the free riders so that the people who do use the system are paying for those who can't pay... how is this different from taxiation? How would you prevent line jumping for medically necessary procedures based on ability to pay instead of need? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have replied to your aguments though I have not agreed. I have provided sources, I have asked valid question and raised concerns to which you have not responded. The best you have offered is that tax = mass extortion or tax = theft = wrong. You have refused to found your article in any source or provide intellecutal rationale for it. I even found one source that did agree with your side of the argument and still you did not respond. So if you are finished your portion of the debate I will commend you on your perserverence however do not accuse me of having not answered you.

So Koi,

You seem to be picking up where Jack left off, where shall we begin?

Willie Dent · Feb 25, 2004, 10:46 pm

There is an undercurrent of thought, among Canadians who, as they observe and examine how the present political system operates in this province, have concluded we must regain control of our government. This is a government that, at all levels, has increasingly become populated by professionals who have joined the political parties, that have usurped, what once was government for and by the people.
The latest Sponsorship Scandal, combined with all the other waste “government” has placed at our feet, is now followed by this, federal government is spending far more on the administration of residential abuse claims than on actual settlements, according to documents obtained by CBC News.
Over the past three years, Ottawa has spent more than $200 million managing the claims, according to documents obtained through Canada's Access to Information Act. One-third of that amount has gone to government lawyers and their staff.
During the same period, only $38 million has been paid out in claims to victims of the abuse, according to the documents, which are often marked "secret."
The professionals I refer to are the lawyers and doctors who have joined the professional politicians whose aim is to establish tenure for themselves and, in some instances, their progeny. The motivating force behind these dynasties has to be the money, power and perks that accrue as one becomes entrenched within the system.

Unfortunately for he rest of us, our governments have become out of touch and unresponsive to the real needs of the people.

These “professional” politicians have assessed their own worth through so called independent advisors( usually ex-politicians or those closely involved with political parties ) and pay themselves very well indeed ~ compared to most of the working people who are expected to foot the bill.
And why not ? Lawyers come from a profession that has been granted the right to police its members ( Barrister’s Society ) and similar privileges are extended to inoculate medical doctors from censure by any means other than the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
All very tidy and protective. Even the most blatant examples of abuse by erring members of these professions have gone unpunished ~ or, with the proverbial “slap on the wrist”.
Those of you here who would disagree that the public perception is wrong are, yet again, demonstrating just how “out of touch” you really are.
I would remind you that the former tenants in the Palace of Versailles and the royals of Czarist Russia held similar attitudes many years ago and reaped the whirlwind when their subjects ceased to believe or be intimidated by the myth.
In this province today, the myth is proclaimed and perpetuated that there is good government .
Good for whom? Mostly for the professionals and their professional societies that have been granted the right to administer their own law as it pertains to their profession. Who granted that right?

Willie Dent · Feb 25, 2004, 10:53 pm

Government, through legislative action by its members. Who are those members? Many come from the membership rolls of the very same societies who benefit from their protective legislation . Proving again that, in some instances, “incest IS best”.
Further, professionals are largely responsible for these “governments” and should be well-paid ( at a commensurate level )for their input. This in a country that has in excess of Billion dollars in debt and an infrastructure that is on a downward spiral because of politicians and governments whose vision was restricted by politics and the inability to see beyond the tip of their nose.
No wonder governments in Canada have been chastised for operating in SECRECY ! When you continually grow debt, provide poorly considered legislation and only a reactive response in crises, I guess you really don’t want the world ( and certainly, the electorate ) to know just how poorly equipped you REALLY are at governing.
The highly deserving and august professionals I refer to are, ostensibly, the” cream of the crop” ~ lawyers and doctors trained to the nth degree in the intricacies of your professions but without , one must suspect, of never having been exposed to the nuances of morals, ethics and, particularly, empathy as you made your way through university.
The public perception, I’m sure , is that all of you professionals should be more than capable of shouldering the responsibilities inherent in government ~
but you have unfailingly demonstrated the opposite time and again by the results.
You are probably one of the best illustrations of that old saw, “ The Ark was built by an amateur but, .... the TITANIC was built by professionals !”
Canada slowly goes under as the rest of us continue to endure under the bad faith legislation you “ professional politicians “ have enacted in your half-hearted attempt to justify the raises you eagerly take for yourselves as often as possible.
Considering all the training you professionals have undergone, I would like to know when, and under what circumstances, you were dumbed down enough to author and ratify the laws that allow the WCB to go about its business in the manner it does in Canada?
I can’t believe any of you would stoop so low as to cheat on those courses you took that culminated in your being granted degrees.
That said, I can only conclude that the bad faith legislation you were either a party to or tacitly endorse today, is not the result of a mistake or any error in judgement.
No ~ this legislation was maliciously calculated to confuse and confound the Canadian citizen.

SVMc · Feb 25, 2004, 11:08 pm

Hello Willie,

My gawd, we actually attracted someone else to this thread and I think you sound like your really up on Canadian issues.

I will definatley concurr that the level of proffesionalization in government ranks is applaing. We should also mention among doctors and lawyers the increase in professional economists. And correspondingly the "miscalculations" in regards to how much money the previous government gave to Paul Martin's steam ship lines (137,000 --> 161,000,000!!!).

The question I have is how do we begin to de-professionalize the political class. How do we diversify it? How do we give it back to citizens? The average "person on the street" has become so confused by the political retorich that goes on in our parliaments that they will claim to know nothing or be uninterested in politics. Yet if you talk to them about the issues, without using pejorative language they are well spoken and informed for the most part.

What do you think about the consesnus forms of governing that are being developed in Nunavut?

What do you think about more access to community councils and interfacing at least with municipal levels of governments?

Do you think that electoral reform can have enough of an impact on representation?

BTW, it would be nice to hear from everyone on these issues in a Canadian forum instead of being trapped by just the private / public dichotomy.

Wayne Coady · Feb 25, 2004, 11:37 pm

Hello SVMC: How about democracy:and we start thinking outside the party box!

Let's examine a word with which most Canadians are probably not familiar, though they have been living under its oppression for years.
The dictionary defines "oligarchy" as "a political system governed by a few people."
Very precise and descriptive of what has been passing for government for at least the last 50 years in Canada. Mr. Martin, Mr Jack Layton and Mr Stephen Harper must be very aware and appreciative of the oligarchy in Canada when one considers that they are, and have been, very much one of the insiders and beneficiaries of the Canadian way of doing things.
The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. These parties pick and prepare the candidates and when the election rolls around, these parties help finance and promote their candidates. Financing has traditionally come from those in the business community or unions who are anything but altruists. They expect something in return for their investments of cash, and past performances by the two parties that have formed governments have never let their investors down.
Any party that has achieved a majority government in Canada has financed projects for business with thinly disguised loans from taxpayer-fed coffers. Grants that are supposedly available to anybody invariably make their way to party supporters of the government of the day much more easily and frequently than to those who supported the other side. In the middle is the poor (literally and figuratively) taxpayer who is always on the hook for the bad loans and financial ineptitude of those who manage to take care of their own first.
How often have we all heard the term "backroom boys"?
They do exist and they are the people who really determine a government's direction and policies, not the electorate. These are the people with the money, and we know the old equation: money equals power.
Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play.
A good case in point is the recent situation with the closure of privately run homes for the aged. Old people who were established in these homes and apparently well cared for (according to relatives) are suddenly being thrust out by order of the Nova Scotia provincial fire marshal, who is enforcing laws and rules that are, at best, nebulous and, at worst, politically motivated. The aged and infirm who were bounced out of what had been their homes aren't voters or taxpayers anymore. Many of them were probably staunch supporters of one of the two parties that have always governed this province, but they don't count anymore because they can't work for or contribute to the party.
The average person feels an injustice has been done, but feels powerless to chastise this government for its cold and callous treatment of seniors. Those who remember will vote against them when an election is called. Others will simply make some rationalization that this was the right thing to do and vote for the government's second term - good party supporters.
Instead, every voter in Canada should begin to think that the day will come when their property could be taken and they, too, will be infirm and require care in a nursing facility.
The only way each of us can ever expect compassion and common sense from government is to change the small and select group that has traditionally governed in Nova Scotia.
Parties are not about to change, and anyone who thinks they can make long-term changes from within a party's structure will find themselves involved in an exercise in futility.
The only alternative to government by party is government by consensus, whose members are independent in thought and motivated by their own sense of decency and desire for a government that is fiscally and morally responsible to the people for its actions, and not to the party.
This form of government works well in the Northwest Territories, and is far closer to the model and principles of democracy than that which the would have us all believe in.
The Elections Act of Nova Scotia is constituted to allow for any person to run as an independent candidate in this province. Five signatures on your nomination papers and $100 can qualify you as a candidate, assuming you don't have a criminal record. Judging by the quality of government and leadership we have had thus far from the parties that have hijacked us in the past, it's high time we all started to think outside of the box as a means to elect governments that are responsible and responsive to the people who elect them.

SVMc · Feb 26, 2004, 07:08 pm

Hi Wayne,

I just have time to post a quick note right now. Extremely good points. I might go further to say that few parties have ever achieved a true majority in Canada. I think the actual number is something like only 3 times have we had a true majority in power (and of course that is only if you count a majority as a voting majority).

I have to admit I am horribly under-read on Nova Scotia, if you could bring us up to speed on a quick history of Nova Scotia it would be appreciated.

I'm a big fan of the consensus efforts that are being made in the NWT. My question is how to translate that to a larger population. I'm located in TO and mass communication works about as well as mass transit here (basically bumpy and slow).

Is Nova Scotia one of the six proviences that is considering proportional representation. Do you think this is a good begining to move to consensus. I know it's been demonstrated that it is easier for independants to run under this system if it's a mixed system. However the effective parties have usually only moved from 2.3 to about 4.6 (even in Italy and Isreal which are accused of being party chocked).

I'll look some of this up when I have more time.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Mathieu · Feb 26, 2004, 07:30 pm

Here is a critic of UFP about the proportional system wich will be probably installed in Quebec ... Something to practice you french :)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Réforme du mode de scrutin: l'UFP réagit au projet du ministre Dupuis

Lors d'une rencontre qu'elle a eue récemment avec le ministre délégué à la réforme des institutions démocratiques, Jacques Dupuis, une délégation de l'Union des forces progressistes a obtenu des renseignements de la part de ce dernier concernant certaines modalités du projet de loi qu'il est en train de mettre au point pour modifier le scrutin majoritaire en vigueur actuellement. Les membres de cette délégation ont pu constater, à leur grand étonnement, que ce projet ne ressemble pas au système de type proportionnel mixte compensatoire que le ministre avait dit envisager en septembre dernier. Toutes les modalités propres à un scrutin de type proportionnel sont en effet absentes du projet ministériel.

Le texte qui suit fait part de ces constatations. Il se veut, pour notre formation politique, une sonnette d'alarme devant la tournure décevante que risque de prendre un projet de réforme qui a soulevé de l'espoir chez des milliers de citoyens et citoyennes québécois.

Merci de votre attention.
Paul Cliche, porte-parole de l'UFP en matière de réforme des
institutions démocratiques,
(514) 256-8949

-------------------------

L'UFP réagit après une rencontre avec le ministre:
Dupuis veut ignorer le scrutin proportionnel pour concocter un système compensatoire majoritaire bénéficiant aux libéraux et excluant les petits partis

par Paul Cliche, responsable du dossier de la réforme des institutions démocratiques à l'Union des forces progressistes

Conformément au programme de son parti qui promettait qu'une réforme du mode de scrutin aurait lieu "dans les deux premières années" d'un mandat libéral, le gouvernement Charest s'est engagé, lors du discours d'ouverture de la session en juin dernier, à présenter, au printemps 2004 soit d'ici juin, un projet de loi pour modifier le mode de scrutin majoritaire actuel afin "d'assurer un plus grand respect de la volonté des électeurs en y introduisant des modalités de représentation proportionnelle".

Par la suite, le ministre Jacques Dupuis, chargé d'instaurer cette réforme, a annoncé que son choix s'était porté sur un système de type proportionnel mixte compensatoire. Même si la formule d'une proportionnelle de type régional constitue le premier choix de l'UFP, notre parti serait prêt à accepter le système mixte du ministre Dupuis en autant qu'on l'applique dans son intégrité sans l'édulcorer de façon inconsidérée et surtout le dénaturer. Il devrait en conséquence permettre une correction complète des distorsions causées par le scrutin majoritaire afin que la représentation parlementaire respecte le plus possible la volonté populaire exprimée par les électeurs, que tous les partis soient représentés équitablement, que chaque vote compte et que la parité hommes-femmes soit favorisée.

Mais plus on en apprend sur les modalités du projet que le ministre Dupuis est en train de concocter dans le secret des officines gouvernementales, plus on appréhende que ce dernier accouche d'une législation qui, loin d'instaurer le système mixte compensatoire annoncé, ne comprendrait aucun élément propre à un scrutin proportionnel. Il ne s'agirait même pas d'une proportionnelle à rabais.
L'appellation consacrée "réforme cosmétique" serait aussi trop généreuse, car on risque d'aboutir à un scrutin de type compensatoire exclusivement majoritaire qui n'existe, à notre connaissance, dans aucun autre pays. Le principal bénéficiaire de ce système, fabriqué sur mesure, serait le Parti libéral comme on peut s'en douter. Ce dernier se verrait soulager du handicap de 300 000 voix (7,5% des suffrages globaux) qui le désavantage face au Parti québécois à cause de la concentration de ses appuis dans des zones à forte composante anglophone comme l'Ouest de Montréal. Par contre, les principaux perdants seraient à coup sûr les petites formations en émergence, comme l'UFP, dont les appuis électoraux se situent en bas de 15% des suffrages. Ces dernières continueraient d'être exclues de l'Assemblée nationale. Pour être représenté un parti devrait dépasser ce seuil. On aboutirait ainsi à la consécration du tripartisme existant à l'Assemblée nationale depuis 1994, à la différence près que l'Action démocratique serait dorénavant traitée plus équitablement.

Les modalités du projet Dupuis

Le ministre Dupuis a informé récemment une délégation de l'UFP - qu'il avait invitée à le rencontrer dans le cadre de rencontres qu'il mène avec les partis et des groupes intéressés - des modalités du projet qu'il est en train de préparer.

Les voici:

-Le nombre de députés de l'Assemblée nationale restera à 125. Cette décision rend impossible le choix d'une formule où, comme en Allemagne, le ratio 50-50 de députés élus au majoritaire dans des circonscriptions et au scrutin de liste (proportionnelle) permet, grâce au principe de la compensation, une correction complète des distorsions c'est-à-dire une proportionnalité parfaite. Dans cette perspective, 150 députés auraient été nécessaires pour qu'il y ait un minimum de 75 circonscriptions car avec un chiffre moins élevé elles seraient trop populeuses ou trop grandes géographiquement.

-Selon le ministre, le ratio serait plutôt de 60-40; c'est-à-dire 75 députés de circonscription élus au majoritaire (comme pour les élections fédérales) et 50 qui serviraient à effectuer la compensation. C'est une proportion voisine de celle existant en Nouvelle-Zélande et en Écosse qui ont adopté un système dérivé de l'allemand. Il semble que ce ratio peut produire une proportionnalité satisfaisante en autant que les éléments mentionnés ci-après fassent partie de la combinaison.

-Point capital: Contrairement à ce qui existe partout ailleurs, M. Dupuis envisage la suppression du deuxième vote, celui proportionnel au scrutin de liste qui permet normalement d'appliquer la compensation et qui sert à déterminer la répartition globale des sièges entre les partis. Sous prétexte de simplifier les choses pour les électeurs, le ministre ne conserverait que le vote majoritaire qui, en plus de servir à l'élection des députés de circonscription, servirait à élire les députés compensateurs. Pourtant, les Québécois sont habitués à voter deux fois au niveau municipal (une fois pour le maire et l'autre pour les conseillers).

Dans les autres pays, c'est grâce à ce deuxième vote que les députés des petits partis sont élus (verts en Allemagne, socialistes et verts et même aînés en Écosse, etc). Ce dernier permet, en effet, à ces formations de faire le plein de leurs voix parce que les électeurs peuvent moduler leurs préférences. Ils peuvent en effet, s'ils le veulent, voter pour des candidats de partis différents en élisant leur député de circonscription et en élisant les députés qui servent à effectuer la compensation . En Allemagne, 22% des électeurs ont ainsi modulé leurs préférences aux élections de 2002; 16% aux élections de 2003 en Écosse.

Ce phénomène ne serait pas possible avec un seul vote exercé dans un contexte majoritaire où le phénomène du vote stratégique ou du vote utile prévaudrait toujours. Les petits partis seraient ainsi défavorisés injustement car, à cause des entourloupettes d'un système vicié à la base, ils ne pourraient recueillir des appuis qui devraient leur revenir.

-Autre point essentiel: Contrairement à ce qui existe partout ailleurs également, le ministre Dupuis envisage de supprimer les listes de candidats présentées par les partis afin d'effectuer l'opération de compensation. Une décision en ce sens aurait pour effet d'éliminer le principal instrument ayant servi jusqu'ici à hausser la représentation des femmes, comme l'a démontré l'expérience des pays scandinaves. Elle défavoriserait également des catégories minoritaires comme les groupes ethniques. Le ministre remplacerait les listes par une formule de repêchage où les candidats défaits ayant obtenu le meilleur score au majoritaire dans les circonscriptions deviendraient députés. Il déclare vouloir ainsi obliger tous les candidats à s'impliquer sur le terrain et éviter la création de deux classes de députés. Mais la double candidature telle que pratiquée en Allemagne atteindrait le même objectif sans comporter de tels inconvénients.

-Le ministre a fait savoir que les 50 sièges servant à la compensation ne seraient pas répartis sur une base nationale comme il l'avait laissé entendre précédemment, mais sur la base d'entités régionales. Or, il appert que l'amplitude (nombre de sièges) de ces entités serait très faible; d'où résulterait automatiquement une proportionnalité aussi très faible. En Écosse, par exemple, les régions électorales comptent chacune 7 sièges servant à la compensation. Au Québec elles n'en compteraient que 3, 4 ou 5. Cette amplitude serait loin de permettre une correction complète; d'où l'imposition d'un seuil de facto de l'ordre de 15% pour que les partis puissent participer à la distribution des sièges.

Le ministre dit vouloir favoriser le sentiment d'appartenance, mais il y aura déjà 75 circonscriptions dans ce but. S'il était vraiment sincère, il adopterait le système de proportionnelle régionale préconisé par l'UFP puisque le nombre de 125 sièges rendrait alors possible la création d'entités régionales permettant une proportionnalité satisfaisante. Dans les circonstances, l'UFP demande donc qu'on procède à une compensation où les 50 sièges seraient distribués au niveau national. Il faudrait toutefois que la loi oblige les partis à inclure des candidats des différentes régions dans leurs listes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

SVMc · Feb 26, 2004, 11:49 pm

Bonjour Mathieu,

(please correct or assume bad french) Je pence que a cette pointe j'avais compris la premier section ecrite par Paul Cliche. Deux question: qu'est UFP? Est ce que l'article faire in criticisme du system du "pr" ou des system "mixed" ou system "ranked ballots"....

Donne mois une jour avant que je me renderz chez la maison du ma mere pour demander une translation :)

(For those of you whose french is worse than mine) I think at this point I have understood the first section writen by Paul Cliche. Two questions: what is UFP? Is the article criticising the "pr" system or the "mixed" system or the "ranked ballot" system.

Give me a day before I have to go to my mothers house to ask for a translation :)

Mathieu · Feb 26, 2004, 11:57 pm

Hi, UFP stands for union des forces progressives.

It is a union of the old Marxist-Leninist, Green, socialist, and many social group . Pretty much the left party here.

The paper critic the Mixed system. However, it not exactly the system as the modifications made by the liberals on this system as implemented in manuy nordic country in europe and in germany.

UFP was ready to accept a system based on the German one , but what the liberals have came with so far is a new system never experimented and with some bias in favor of the liberals, according to Cliche, who talks for UFP

PS: Your french is excellent ! :)

SVMc · Feb 27, 2004, 12:15 am

Il ne s'agirait même pas d'une proportionnelle à rabais.

Stuck here, I understand that to mean "It wasn't even a CHEAP proportional syste".... but that dosent make sense.

Mathieu · Feb 27, 2004, 12:29 am

It wouldn't even be a rebate proportional . It is an expression wich mean that it is does not even have any of the advantage of the proportional.

50/50 women men representation, and the better representation of the small party.

You have to get min 15% to get in the pr pool . And the choice of the seat is made according to the result of the candidates in every county.

SVMc · Feb 27, 2004, 12:39 am

entourloupettes

Please translate above word.

Mathieu · Feb 27, 2004, 12:50 am

Entourloupette d'un systeme :

The different subtle manipulation made the the concepts at the base of the systeme . Acrobacy of concepts

exemple , entourloupette juridique: When a lawyer use an exception or a hole in a law to gain a point, he exploit a hole of the system .

So here he meant that there is hole in the system. Because of the different hole in it, it prevent minor party to gain a real voice, one of the concept at the base of the adoption of this system . It is illusionism ...

SVMc · Feb 27, 2004, 01:37 am

Je suis completement d’accord!! Ceci un bastardization des système PR qui sont disponiables. Je pensais que la système de scrutiny alternative était mauvais. C’est vraisment décourageant d’entendre que le Quebec suit ce chemaine par-ce-que ils ont fait tent de travail sur la système PR. J’ai entendu que les femme au Quebec receaient une meilleure representation après 20 annés du travail pour saisir contrôl des circonscriptions. Est-ce que vous entendu de cą?

Un feuil de 15% ou des entités régionales avec seulment 3, 4 ou 5 sièges compensatoires c’est la même chose. Et je crois que la suppression de la 2iem vote qui fair á élier la candidate compensatoires et inentendue. Sans dire que le liste fervent pendant une campaigne pour tenier responsables les parti pour l’équitables distribution des fammes et des candidates minoritaires. Ensuite la represntation plus haute des minoritaires en PR que se trouvent d’ordinarirement exclus des politiques. La suppression des liste assurant la continuation de la proffessionalisation des politiques qui exclut la majorities des citoyens et cityoennes. D’ailleurs le système de vote simple renderent les candidates plus responsables ou parti qu’aux gents donc ils sont les soi-disent reprentative… l’exact contraire de l’intention de système PR.

(It took me an hour to compose the above in French) I agree with him completely!! This is a horrible bastardization of the PR systems available. And I thought the "ranked ballot" was bad. It's really unfortunate to hear that Quebec is going this way because they have done so much work on the PR system. I heard that women in Quebec have been getting much better representation after 20 years of work taking over riding committees, have you hear anything about this?

Having the 15% threshold, or having regionalism with only 3,4 or 5 seats amounts to the same thing. And I believe taking away the 2nd ballot that elects the list candidate is unheard of. Not to mention the fact that the lists themselves are usually used during a PR campaign to hold parties responsible for providing equality of gender and race on their lists. Hence the higher representation of minorities who are usually left out of politics. Eliminating the lists ensure a continued professionalization of politics further excluding the majority of citizens. And also the one ballot system would make candidates more accountable to their parties than the people they are supposed to represent... the exact opposite of the intention of the PR system.

Wayne Coady · Feb 27, 2004, 11:03 am

Hi SVMc: Proportional representation, is good, but still leaves the power in the hands of the party elite. We might also consider reforming the election process, by adding recall and remove lobbyest from the process.
I feel that if the elected independent candidate is going to be lobbyed, then the lobbyest must go through a constituency council, not through their elected member.
All I can say about Nova Scotia Politics can be sumed it in one word "Corrupt" . This province wrote the book on how to money launderning tax payers dollars.
Living in a highly populated area like Toronto can be a benefit, when trying to get your message out. I know that here in Nova Scotia, the rural areas are a little slower to accept change, but if you use the switch from the Liberal or the Tories to the NDP, now that was quite a trip for many of us here to fathom, but I would say it happened because it was easier for the NDP to get their message out, because of the population base.
I also noticed that callers to a local talk show have been expressing their distain for the party system and just this morning in a local paper, in the voice of the people section, a Mr Tuttle attacked the party system and would like to see independent candidates. I will post his article.
This is a battle the citizens are ready for, maybe in this election they will stick with the parties, but I would be willing to say that if they screw it up, then the people would be willing to look at independent candidates.Get ready.
Below this gentleman,Mr Mike Cox has been trying to promote this site and I am giving the concept much consideration, but on a provincial level first, I like to fight smaller battles first. You know one province at a time.
http://www.newconsensusparty.ca/

Wayne Coady · Feb 27, 2004, 11:09 am

Here is Mr Tuttles article in the Chronicle~Herald:
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/02/27...ers123.raw.html

Eradicate parties

There were several good letters on Feb. 20 and I agree with much of the content. However, Scott Campbell has missed the point that our idea of democracy seems to be electing a "party," not a government of the people for the p

View Poll Results: how would you vote in the next Canadian Fed Election?
Liberal	4	18.18%
Conservative	4	18.18%
NDP	6	27.27%
Bloq	0	0%
Green	3	13.64%
other	5	22.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote

Feb 25, 2004, 04:11 pm	#122 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	wrong. I require a single surgey. which, provided I had not been taxed I could afford. It is a simple surgery requiring perhaps 3 days at most in the hospital. By taxes I mean this to include GST, which is a disgusting and blatant example of government lies to further fatten their wallets. 7 cents back for every, single dollar I have spent in the last 6 years... god, I'd be filthy rich. I've spent close to 10 grand in the last two years. 10,0000*o.o7=7000. that's 7000 dollars in GST. if I had not been taxed off of my paycheques I would of had more income to spend, possibly another... 4000? that means 11,0000 dollars I could afford to spend on my single operation and a yearly trip to the dentist. (I have no cavitys, I take care of myself) numbers don't lie. that get left up to the politions. "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Feb 25, 2004, 07:00 pm	#124 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Jack, You are grasping at straws at this point. You are cutting and pasting single sentences out of paragraphs trying to misrepresent what I have said and accusing me of not replying to argument which I have replied to. I suggest you read the full paragraph at once to ascertain my opinion rather than random sentences which make up the paragrpah. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (SVMc,) You have decided that by your definition taxes are theft. Then you universalize theft as wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) That's how I arrived at my opinion, yes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That sentence was in the middle of the following paragraph, which was in reply to your statement arguing that there was no middle moral ground in the case of taxiation. Here is the original paragrpah as written in response to the original question: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted By (SVMc) Well that's exactly the problem. You are incapable of creating any middle ground in your mind. In your analytical scope you believe that you have not given express permission for the government to demand taxes from you as an individual therefore the government must be committing an act of theft against you. You ignore all arguments to the contrary. If you insist on following an X = X linear equation you will get the result you want. But that's because you are only considering one variable and the problem is that more than one exist. You and the government do not exist as amorphous entities juxtaposed to each other. You and society do not exist seperate from each other. You ignore history, sociology and social psychology that inform us of how and why we have constructed societies and to what benefits and detrements. You have decided that by your definition taxes are theft. Then you universalize theft as wrong. So there are two problems first you have to be extreme enough to buy into the tax = theft equation. Then you need to employ a universal moral of theft = wrong. Many people hold a range of moderate views regarding taxiation that do not go to the extreme of total systemic tax (all income is systemically distributed) or to your extreme of no tax should exist because tax = theft. These are two extreme views at either side of the spectrum. There are many debates inbetween on method, purpose, use and distribution of taxes that are not at the margins of the argument, hence not as extreme. If you don't want to be defined as extreme then show some reflexive reasoning capabilities. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) You keep repeating that it's "extreme" yet you don't say why. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe I have outlined quite clearly what it is I find extreme about your views in the above paragraph. However if you are not satisfied with the response I gave above perhaps you were more or less satisfied with the one I wrote in the second part of the next paragraph following that one, here is is again: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (SVMc) So there have to be a number of people (at least in Canada and I expect in the states) that while they may not agree with aspects of taxiation do believe it plays a role in our society as a positive enough force not to advocate it's entire decimation. That would be a moderate view (where I fall). Then there are those who advocate total taxiation and redistribution (that would be the other extreme). If the best argument you can come up with is that tax = theft = mass extortion. You've made it and you don't seem to have convinced many people, this might be symptomatic of the lack of proof you have provided. After all you are an American on a Canadian thread trying to convince Canadians that the Canadian system equates to mass extortion. I think the burden of proof is on you to make that case. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) You're repeating yourself. If you have an argument for why you think "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," is not extortion, I'd like to see it. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please see the above two paragraphs as to why I do not think taxation is equivilant to mass extortion. Here are some further answers I have given as to why I do not see taxiation as mass extortion: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (SVMc) A reflection of a value system in our society that assumes social responsibility for those people who for whatever reason live on the margins and need help. It has been proved by MANY people that to abandon people to self-initative when socio-economic equilibrium is non-existant will in more cases mean a deterioration in conditions and levels of povert not improve them. People need access to services regardless of income. The fact is i do not choose to get sick, I do not choose to get injured, and whatever you synical view of the poor is most people do not choose to be poor. I think I do have recourse if I am not satisfied with service, it may not be perfect but we are not living in a despotism In a sense yes in a sense no. If you ask me if I think the state should be able to take random sums of my means of survival I would say no and agree that this was violence because they were depriving me of my means of survial. If you ask me if that is what I think most industralized "developed" governments are doing I would argue no. I argue very much agains the use of legitimized violence and the placement of the state as the only legitimate user of violenc. However I do not equate taxiation within social responsible limits as violence I say break the heirarchy at basic needs, we as a society have an obligation to try to provide the basic necessities for human survival and dignity as defined by the UN charter on Human Rights and measured by the UN Human Development Index. Typically these services are provided to the poorest in society via some sort of administered tax, it may be the worst system we have come up with, except for all the others. FYI, governments do control food via farm subsidies and price flooring as well as the administration of food banks. Restaurants need to be licenced here, and are graded on a three point level scale administered by the government. Some provinces have public health care, and while I am not in favour of government run media, our current CBC is being much more unbiased than our one family conglomerate that controls ALL of our other broadcast Media (Can-West Global). I'm not advocating all of these controls, I recognize controls can, have and are corrupt in some areas, but I don't think that that is a reason to unilaterally do away with them. You have proposed no situations that would provide for the worlds poorest in your arguments. I can't eat freedom. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Those can all be viewed from their original posts in the original context. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) What's the difference between a) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," where 'a' is the IRS and 'b' is the Mafia?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> See above arguments on same topic. Simply because I don't agree with you does not mean I have not responded to you. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) You accused me of being extreme. I didn't accuse you of being extreme.I asked how you can claim my view is extreme while refusing to say why yours is not? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes I did accuse you of being extreme. And here is you accusing me of being extreme: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) Uh . . YOU advocate that, not me. Why aren't YOU the extremist?? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And I believe I have answered that in the all or nothing contexts I have outlined numerous times. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) Since when is reality transformed by majority opinion? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never claimed that "reality" is transformed by "majority" opinion. First of all because I don't believe in an empirical "reality" which is seperate from ourselves and not socially constructed and secondly because I don't believe in cohesive majorities. What I did argue is that we would be seeing very different behaviour from the population ie: riots, revolution, Boston tea paries (added) if it was a more commonly held opinion or a majority opinon (seperate from the idea of majority groupings) that tax = mass extortion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) Where or when did I ask you to consider my credentials, here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You didn't I just check eveyone's credentials if they are freely supplied (which you did). I will also hold someone who claims to have an academic background to an academic standard higher than someone who has no academic background or some kid who is just posting thier version of an op. ed. peice. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) Claiming a bunch of other people agree with you does not qualify as a "citation." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Citation goes to credibility. If you want to be crediable source your work. It is standard academic practice not even a year one university student would object to. And no claimina a bunch of people agree with you does not qualify as citation providing others with enough access to sources which you think are credible so that people can go there and read the articles or books and judge for them seleves is citation. So for example saying Mr. X agrees with me is not a citation. But saying Mr. X published Y book and I think it is very reliable gives me enough information to go look it up. Full citations can also include full bibliographical refrences, personalized foot notes or end notes. If you would like me to include those for the books I provided I can do so. But first you could at least provide one source, unless you are simply going on opinion. In which case you've stated it clearly and I've stated clearly that I disagree. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originallly Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) You asked me for proof that some hospitals in the United States treat people who have no insurance. I provided it. You didn't ackowledge that you had been misled. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This was exactly my response to the article that you posted: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (SVMc) While that link is welcome to see because it demonstrates that there are some things being done; the problem is that it is the last paragraph in an article that pre-empts itself with the discription of a boy who received treatment after being thrown 230 ft. when impacted by a car, the quality of the level 1 trauma unit and a burn centre. All of which constitute life or limb conditions for treatment. Furthermore it tells us nothing about the prevelence of this occurance in any other region. How many Americans have access to primary and preventative care? Under what conditions? Provided by whom? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In otherwords it did not provide any information for me to make a judgement on if I had been mislead about the American Medical System. One clinic, and one case in one clinic does not read as a case for equal access to health care in cases that are not life or limb qualifiers. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb) I offered you a compromise, that I would not oppose state-sponsored health care for all if it were funded by taxing corporations. You didn't even acknowledge my offer. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This was my response to your offer after you denied my first response as a "straw man of capitalism" </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Originally Posted by (SVMc) I fail to see how this is drastically different from the current private health care system. So I fail to see how this is not a private enterprise solution that would exclude the poorest elements of society from obtaining health care, and would most definately let certain economically priviledged individuals receive better health care than others. Hence the comment about capitilist driven interests being counter intutive to universal coverage. First of all how would a state tax a corporation for providing health coverage to all people? Why would a corporation be inclined to offer health care to all people if they would have to service people who could not pay them? If they had to service people who could not pay them (the free rider problem) then wouldn't the fees have to go up for the people who could pay them to compensate for the free riders so that the people who do use the system are paying for those who can't pay... how is this different from taxiation? How would you prevent line jumping for medically necessary procedures based on ability to pay instead of need? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have replied to your aguments though I have not agreed. I have provided sources, I have asked valid question and raised concerns to which you have not responded. The best you have offered is that tax = mass extortion or tax = theft = wrong. You have refused to found your article in any source or provide intellecutal rationale for it. I even found one source that did agree with your side of the argument and still you did not respond. So if you are finished your portion of the debate I will commend you on your perserverence however do not accuse me of having not answered you. So Koi, You seem to be picking up where Jack left off, where shall we begin? Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 25, 2004, 11:08 pm	#127 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Hello Willie, My gawd, we actually attracted someone else to this thread and I think you sound like your really up on Canadian issues. I will definatley concurr that the level of proffesionalization in government ranks is applaing. We should also mention among doctors and lawyers the increase in professional economists. And correspondingly the "miscalculations" in regards to how much money the previous government gave to Paul Martin's steam ship lines (137,000 --> 161,000,000!!!). The question I have is how do we begin to de-professionalize the political class. How do we diversify it? How do we give it back to citizens? The average "person on the street" has become so confused by the political retorich that goes on in our parliaments that they will claim to know nothing or be uninterested in politics. Yet if you talk to them about the issues, without using pejorative language they are well spoken and informed for the most part. What do you think about the consesnus forms of governing that are being developed in Nunavut? What do you think about more access to community councils and interfacing at least with municipal levels of governments? Do you think that electoral reform can have enough of an impact on representation? BTW, it would be nice to hear from everyone on these issues in a Canadian forum instead of being trapped by just the private / public dichotomy. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 26, 2004, 07:08 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Hi Wayne, I just have time to post a quick note right now. Extremely good points. I might go further to say that few parties have ever achieved a true majority in Canada. I think the actual number is something like only 3 times have we had a true majority in power (and of course that is only if you count a majority as a voting majority). I have to admit I am horribly under-read on Nova Scotia, if you could bring us up to speed on a quick history of Nova Scotia it would be appreciated. I'm a big fan of the consensus efforts that are being made in the NWT. My question is how to translate that to a larger population. I'm located in TO and mass communication works about as well as mass transit here (basically bumpy and slow). Is Nova Scotia one of the six proviences that is considering proportional representation. Do you think this is a good begining to move to consensus. I know it's been demonstrated that it is easier for independants to run under this system if it's a mixed system. However the effective parties have usually only moved from 2.3 to about 4.6 (even in Italy and Isreal which are accused of being party chocked). I'll look some of this up when I have more time. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 25, 2004, 10:25 am	#121 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	LOL, we take all that from you and you'll be the first to whine ... Or you die from you disease cause you won't have the money to pay for the health care ...

Feb 25, 2004, 05:04 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Do you really know how it cost 3 days in the hospital?? And in the same way, I imagine you think old people, children ,homeless, mentally deficient person who can't afford by themselves should just die in the street cause you won't participate in the same system in wich they participate ?

Feb 25, 2004, 10:46 pm	#125 (permalink) (top)
Willie Dent Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	There is an undercurrent of thought, among Canadians who, as they observe and examine how the present political system operates in this province, have concluded we must regain control of our government. This is a government that, at all levels, has increasingly become populated by professionals who have joined the political parties, that have usurped, what once was government for and by the people. The latest Sponsorship Scandal, combined with all the other waste “government” has placed at our feet, is now followed by this, federal government is spending far more on the administration of residential abuse claims than on actual settlements, according to documents obtained by CBC News. Over the past three years, Ottawa has spent more than $200 million managing the claims, according to documents obtained through Canada's Access to Information Act. One-third of that amount has gone to government lawyers and their staff. During the same period, only $38 million has been paid out in claims to victims of the abuse, according to the documents, which are often marked "secret." The professionals I refer to are the lawyers and doctors who have joined the professional politicians whose aim is to establish tenure for themselves and, in some instances, their progeny. The motivating force behind these dynasties has to be the money, power and perks that accrue as one becomes entrenched within the system. Unfortunately for he rest of us, our governments have become out of touch and unresponsive to the real needs of the people. These “professional” politicians have assessed their own worth through so called independent advisors( usually ex-politicians or those closely involved with political parties ) and pay themselves very well indeed ~ compared to most of the working people who are expected to foot the bill. And why not ? Lawyers come from a profession that has been granted the right to police its members ( Barrister’s Society ) and similar privileges are extended to inoculate medical doctors from censure by any means other than the College of Physicians and Surgeons. All very tidy and protective. Even the most blatant examples of abuse by erring members of these professions have gone unpunished ~ or, with the proverbial “slap on the wrist”. Those of you here who would disagree that the public perception is wrong are, yet again, demonstrating just how “out of touch” you really are. I would remind you that the former tenants in the Palace of Versailles and the royals of Czarist Russia held similar attitudes many years ago and reaped the whirlwind when their subjects ceased to believe or be intimidated by the myth. In this province today, the myth is proclaimed and perpetuated that there is good government . Good for whom? Mostly for the professionals and their professional societies that have been granted the right to administer their own law as it pertains to their profession. Who granted that right?

Feb 25, 2004, 10:53 pm	#126 (permalink) (top)
Willie Dent Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	Government, through legislative action by its members. Who are those members? Many come from the membership rolls of the very same societies who benefit from their protective legislation . Proving again that, in some instances, “incest IS best”. Further, professionals are largely responsible for these “governments” and should be well-paid ( at a commensurate level )for their input. This in a country that has in excess of Billion dollars in debt and an infrastructure that is on a downward spiral because of politicians and governments whose vision was restricted by politics and the inability to see beyond the tip of their nose. No wonder governments in Canada have been chastised for operating in SECRECY ! When you continually grow debt, provide poorly considered legislation and only a reactive response in crises, I guess you really don’t want the world ( and certainly, the electorate ) to know just how poorly equipped you REALLY are at governing. The highly deserving and august professionals I refer to are, ostensibly, the” cream of the crop” ~ lawyers and doctors trained to the nth degree in the intricacies of your professions but without , one must suspect, of never having been exposed to the nuances of morals, ethics and, particularly, empathy as you made your way through university. The public perception, I’m sure , is that all of you professionals should be more than capable of shouldering the responsibilities inherent in government ~ but you have unfailingly demonstrated the opposite time and again by the results. You are probably one of the best illustrations of that old saw, “ The Ark was built by an amateur but, .... the TITANIC was built by professionals !” Canada slowly goes under as the rest of us continue to endure under the bad faith legislation you “ professional politicians “ have enacted in your half-hearted attempt to justify the raises you eagerly take for yourselves as often as possible. Considering all the training you professionals have undergone, I would like to know when, and under what circumstances, you were dumbed down enough to author and ratify the laws that allow the WCB to go about its business in the manner it does in Canada? I can’t believe any of you would stoop so low as to cheat on those courses you took that culminated in your being granted degrees. That said, I can only conclude that the bad faith legislation you were either a party to or tacitly endorse today, is not the result of a mistake or any error in judgement. No ~ this legislation was maliciously calculated to confuse and confound the Canadian citizen.

Feb 25, 2004, 11:37 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
Wayne Coady Sedimentary Rock Location: Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada Posts: 12	Hello SVMC: How about democracy:and we start thinking outside the party box! Let's examine a word with which most Canadians are probably not familiar, though they have been living under its oppression for years. The dictionary defines "oligarchy" as "a political system governed by a few people." Very precise and descriptive of what has been passing for government for at least the last 50 years in Canada. Mr. Martin, Mr Jack Layton and Mr Stephen Harper must be very aware and appreciative of the oligarchy in Canada when one considers that they are, and have been, very much one of the insiders and beneficiaries of the Canadian way of doing things. The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. These parties pick and prepare the candidates and when the election rolls around, these parties help finance and promote their candidates. Financing has traditionally come from those in the business community or unions who are anything but altruists. They expect something in return for their investments of cash, and past performances by the two parties that have formed governments have never let their investors down. Any party that has achieved a majority government in Canada has financed projects for business with thinly disguised loans from taxpayer-fed coffers. Grants that are supposedly available to anybody invariably make their way to party supporters of the government of the day much more easily and frequently than to those who supported the other side. In the middle is the poor (literally and figuratively) taxpayer who is always on the hook for the bad loans and financial ineptitude of those who manage to take care of their own first. How often have we all heard the term "backroom boys"? They do exist and they are the people who really determine a government's direction and policies, not the electorate. These are the people with the money, and we know the old equation: money equals power. Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play. A good case in point is the recent situation with the closure of privately run homes for the aged. Old people who were established in these homes and apparently well cared for (according to relatives) are suddenly being thrust out by order of the Nova Scotia provincial fire marshal, who is enforcing laws and rules that are, at best, nebulous and, at worst, politically motivated. The aged and infirm who were bounced out of what had been their homes aren't voters or taxpayers anymore. Many of them were probably staunch supporters of one of the two parties that have always governed this province, but they don't count anymore because they can't work for or contribute to the party. The average person feels an injustice has been done, but feels powerless to chastise this government for its cold and callous treatment of seniors. Those who remember will vote against them when an election is called. Others will simply make some rationalization that this was the right thing to do and vote for the government's second term - good party supporters. Instead, every voter in Canada should begin to think that the day will come when their property could be taken and they, too, will be infirm and require care in a nursing facility. The only way each of us can ever expect compassion and common sense from government is to change the small and select group that has traditionally governed in Nova Scotia. Parties are not about to change, and anyone who thinks they can make long-term changes from within a party's structure will find themselves involved in an exercise in futility. The only alternative to government by party is government by consensus, whose members are independent in thought and motivated by their own sense of decency and desire for a government that is fiscally and morally responsible to the people for its actions, and not to the party. This form of government works well in the Northwest Territories, and is far closer to the model and principles of democracy than that which the would have us all believe in. The Elections Act of Nova Scotia is constituted to allow for any person to run as an independent candidate in this province. Five signatures on your nomination papers and $100 can qualify you as a candidate, assuming you don't have a criminal record. Judging by the quality of government and leadership we have had thus far from the parties that have hijacked us in the past, it's high time we all started to think outside of the box as a means to elect governments that are responsible and responsive to the people who elect them.

Feb 26, 2004, 07:30 pm	#130 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Here is a critic of UFP about the proportional system wich will be probably installed in Quebec ... Something to practice you french :) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Réforme du mode de scrutin: l'UFP réagit au projet du ministre Dupuis Lors d'une rencontre qu'elle a eue récemment avec le ministre délégué à la réforme des institutions démocratiques, Jacques Dupuis, une délégation de l'Union des forces progressistes a obtenu des renseignements de la part de ce dernier concernant certaines modalités du projet de loi qu'il est en train de mettre au point pour modifier le scrutin majoritaire en vigueur actuellement. Les membres de cette délégation ont pu constater, à leur grand étonnement, que ce projet ne ressemble pas au système de type proportionnel mixte compensatoire que le ministre avait dit envisager en septembre dernier. Toutes les modalités propres à un scrutin de type proportionnel sont en effet absentes du projet ministériel. Le texte qui suit fait part de ces constatations. Il se veut, pour notre formation politique, une sonnette d'alarme devant la tournure décevante que risque de prendre un projet de réforme qui a soulevé de l'espoir chez des milliers de citoyens et citoyennes québécois. Merci de votre attention. Paul Cliche, porte-parole de l'UFP en matière de réforme des institutions démocratiques, (514) 256-8949 ------------------------- L'UFP réagit après une rencontre avec le ministre: Dupuis veut ignorer le scrutin proportionnel pour concocter un système compensatoire majoritaire bénéficiant aux libéraux et excluant les petits partis par Paul Cliche, responsable du dossier de la réforme des institutions démocratiques à l'Union des forces progressistes Conformément au programme de son parti qui promettait qu'une réforme du mode de scrutin aurait lieu "dans les deux premières années" d'un mandat libéral, le gouvernement Charest s'est engagé, lors du discours d'ouverture de la session en juin dernier, à présenter, au printemps 2004 soit d'ici juin, un projet de loi pour modifier le mode de scrutin majoritaire actuel afin "d'assurer un plus grand respect de la volonté des électeurs en y introduisant des modalités de représentation proportionnelle". Par la suite, le ministre Jacques Dupuis, chargé d'instaurer cette réforme, a annoncé que son choix s'était porté sur un système de type proportionnel mixte compensatoire. Même si la formule d'une proportionnelle de type régional constitue le premier choix de l'UFP, notre parti serait prêt à accepter le système mixte du ministre Dupuis en autant qu'on l'applique dans son intégrité sans l'édulcorer de façon inconsidérée et surtout le dénaturer. Il devrait en conséquence permettre une correction complète des distorsions causées par le scrutin majoritaire afin que la représentation parlementaire respecte le plus possible la volonté populaire exprimée par les électeurs, que tous les partis soient représentés équitablement, que chaque vote compte et que la parité hommes-femmes soit favorisée. Mais plus on en apprend sur les modalités du projet que le ministre Dupuis est en train de concocter dans le secret des officines gouvernementales, plus on appréhende que ce dernier accouche d'une législation qui, loin d'instaurer le système mixte compensatoire annoncé, ne comprendrait aucun élément propre à un scrutin proportionnel. Il ne s'agirait même pas d'une proportionnelle à rabais. L'appellation consacrée "réforme cosmétique" serait aussi trop généreuse, car on risque d'aboutir à un scrutin de type compensatoire exclusivement majoritaire qui n'existe, à notre connaissance, dans aucun autre pays. Le principal bénéficiaire de ce système, fabriqué sur mesure, serait le Parti libéral comme on peut s'en douter. Ce dernier se verrait soulager du handicap de 300 000 voix (7,5% des suffrages globaux) qui le désavantage face au Parti québécois à cause de la concentration de ses appuis dans des zones à forte composante anglophone comme l'Ouest de Montréal. Par contre, les principaux perdants seraient à coup sûr les petites formations en émergence, comme l'UFP, dont les appuis électoraux se situent en bas de 15% des suffrages. Ces dernières continueraient d'être exclues de l'Assemblée nationale. Pour être représenté un parti devrait dépasser ce seuil. On aboutirait ainsi à la consécration du tripartisme existant à l'Assemblée nationale depuis 1994, à la différence près que l'Action démocratique serait dorénavant traitée plus équitablement. Les modalités du projet Dupuis Le ministre Dupuis a informé récemment une délégation de l'UFP - qu'il avait invitée à le rencontrer dans le cadre de rencontres qu'il mène avec les partis et des groupes intéressés - des modalités du projet qu'il est en train de préparer. Les voici: -Le nombre de députés de l'Assemblée nationale restera à 125. Cette décision rend impossible le choix d'une formule où, comme en Allemagne, le ratio 50-50 de députés élus au majoritaire dans des circonscriptions et au scrutin de liste (proportionnelle) permet, grâce au principe de la compensation, une correction complète des distorsions c'est-à-dire une proportionnalité parfaite. Dans cette perspective, 150 députés auraient été nécessaires pour qu'il y ait un minimum de 75 circonscriptions car avec un chiffre moins élevé elles seraient trop populeuses ou trop grandes géographiquement. -Selon le ministre, le ratio serait plutôt de 60-40; c'est-à-dire 75 députés de circonscription élus au majoritaire (comme pour les élections fédérales) et 50 qui serviraient à effectuer la compensation. C'est une proportion voisine de celle existant en Nouvelle-Zélande et en Écosse qui ont adopté un système dérivé de l'allemand. Il semble que ce ratio peut produire une proportionnalité satisfaisante en autant que les éléments mentionnés ci-après fassent partie de la combinaison. -Point capital: Contrairement à ce qui existe partout ailleurs, M. Dupuis envisage la suppression du deuxième vote, celui proportionnel au scrutin de liste qui permet normalement d'appliquer la compensation et qui sert à déterminer la répartition globale des sièges entre les partis. Sous prétexte de simplifier les choses pour les électeurs, le ministre ne conserverait que le vote majoritaire qui, en plus de servir à l'élection des députés de circonscription, servirait à élire les députés compensateurs. Pourtant, les Québécois sont habitués à voter deux fois au niveau municipal (une fois pour le maire et l'autre pour les conseillers). Dans les autres pays, c'est grâce à ce deuxième vote que les députés des petits partis sont élus (verts en Allemagne, socialistes et verts et même aînés en Écosse, etc). Ce dernier permet, en effet, à ces formations de faire le plein de leurs voix parce que les électeurs peuvent moduler leurs préférences. Ils peuvent en effet, s'ils le veulent, voter pour des candidats de partis différents en élisant leur député de circonscription et en élisant les députés qui servent à effectuer la compensation . En Allemagne, 22% des électeurs ont ainsi modulé leurs préférences aux élections de 2002; 16% aux élections de 2003 en Écosse. Ce phénomène ne serait pas possible avec un seul vote exercé dans un contexte majoritaire où le phénomène du vote stratégique ou du vote utile prévaudrait toujours. Les petits partis seraient ainsi défavorisés injustement car, à cause des entourloupettes d'un système vicié à la base, ils ne pourraient recueillir des appuis qui devraient leur revenir. -Autre point essentiel: Contrairement à ce qui existe partout ailleurs également, le ministre Dupuis envisage de supprimer les listes de candidats présentées par les partis afin d'effectuer l'opération de compensation. Une décision en ce sens aurait pour effet d'éliminer le principal instrument ayant servi jusqu'ici à hausser la représentation des femmes, comme l'a démontré l'expérience des pays scandinaves. Elle défavoriserait également des catégories minoritaires comme les groupes ethniques. Le ministre remplacerait les listes par une formule de repêchage où les candidats défaits ayant obtenu le meilleur score au majoritaire dans les circonscriptions deviendraient députés. Il déclare vouloir ainsi obliger tous les candidats à s'impliquer sur le terrain et éviter la création de deux classes de députés. Mais la double candidature telle que pratiquée en Allemagne atteindrait le même objectif sans comporter de tels inconvénients. -Le ministre a fait savoir que les 50 sièges servant à la compensation ne seraient pas répartis sur une base nationale comme il l'avait laissé entendre précédemment, mais sur la base d'entités régionales. Or, il appert que l'amplitude (nombre de sièges) de ces entités serait très faible; d'où résulterait automatiquement une proportionnalité aussi très faible. En Écosse, par exemple, les régions électorales comptent chacune 7 sièges servant à la compensation. Au Québec elles n'en compteraient que 3, 4 ou 5. Cette amplitude serait loin de permettre une correction complète; d'où l'imposition d'un seuil de facto de l'ordre de 15% pour que les partis puissent participer à la distribution des sièges. Le ministre dit vouloir favoriser le sentiment d'appartenance, mais il y aura déjà 75 circonscriptions dans ce but. S'il était vraiment sincère, il adopterait le système de proportionnelle régionale préconisé par l'UFP puisque le nombre de 125 sièges rendrait alors possible la création d'entités régionales permettant une proportionnalité satisfaisante. Dans les circonstances, l'UFP demande donc qu'on procède à une compensation où les 50 sièges seraient distribués au niveau national. Il faudrait toutefois que la loi oblige les partis à inclure des candidats des différentes régions dans leurs listes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Feb 26, 2004, 11:49 pm	#131 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Bonjour Mathieu, (please correct or assume bad french) Je pence que a cette pointe j'avais compris la premier section ecrite par Paul Cliche. Deux question: qu'est UFP? Est ce que l'article faire in criticisme du system du "pr" ou des system "mixed" ou system "ranked ballots".... Donne mois une jour avant que je me renderz chez la maison du ma mere pour demander une translation :) (For those of you whose french is worse than mine) I think at this point I have understood the first section writen by Paul Cliche. Two questions: what is UFP? Is the article criticising the "pr" system or the "mixed" system or the "ranked ballot" system. Give me a day before I have to go to my mothers house to ask for a translation :) Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 26, 2004, 11:57 pm	#132 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Hi, UFP stands for union des forces progressives. It is a union of the old Marxist-Leninist, Green, socialist, and many social group . Pretty much the left party here. The paper critic the Mixed system. However, it not exactly the system as the modifications made by the liberals on this system as implemented in manuy nordic country in europe and in germany. UFP was ready to accept a system based on the German one , but what the liberals have came with so far is a new system never experimented and with some bias in favor of the liberals, according to Cliche, who talks for UFP PS: Your french is excellent ! :)

Feb 27, 2004, 12:15 am	#133 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Il ne s'agirait même pas d'une proportionnelle à rabais. Stuck here, I understand that to mean "It wasn't even a CHEAP proportional syste".... but that dosent make sense. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 27, 2004, 12:29 am	#134 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	It wouldn't even be a rebate proportional . It is an expression wich mean that it is does not even have any of the advantage of the proportional. 50/50 women men representation, and the better representation of the small party. You have to get min 15% to get in the pr pool . And the choice of the seat is made according to the result of the candidates in every county.

Feb 27, 2004, 12:39 am	#135 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	entourloupettes Please translate above word. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 27, 2004, 12:50 am	#136 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Entourloupette d'un systeme : The different subtle manipulation made the the concepts at the base of the systeme . Acrobacy of concepts exemple , entourloupette juridique: When a lawyer use an exception or a hole in a law to gain a point, he exploit a hole of the system . So here he meant that there is hole in the system. Because of the different hole in it, it prevent minor party to gain a real voice, one of the concept at the base of the adoption of this system . It is illusionism ...

Feb 27, 2004, 01:37 am	#137 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Je suis completement d’accord!! Ceci un bastardization des système PR qui sont disponiables. Je pensais que la système de scrutiny alternative était mauvais. C’est vraisment décourageant d’entendre que le Quebec suit ce chemaine par-ce-que ils ont fait tent de travail sur la système PR. J’ai entendu que les femme au Quebec receaient une meilleure representation après 20 annés du travail pour saisir contrôl des circonscriptions. Est-ce que vous entendu de cą? Un feuil de 15% ou des entités régionales avec seulment 3, 4 ou 5 sièges compensatoires c’est la même chose. Et je crois que la suppression de la 2iem vote qui fair á élier la candidate compensatoires et inentendue. Sans dire que le liste fervent pendant une campaigne pour tenier responsables les parti pour l’équitables distribution des fammes et des candidates minoritaires. Ensuite la represntation plus haute des minoritaires en PR que se trouvent d’ordinarirement exclus des politiques. La suppression des liste assurant la continuation de la proffessionalisation des politiques qui exclut la majorities des citoyens et cityoennes. D’ailleurs le système de vote simple renderent les candidates plus responsables ou parti qu’aux gents donc ils sont les soi-disent reprentative… l’exact contraire de l’intention de système PR. (It took me an hour to compose the above in French) I agree with him completely!! This is a horrible bastardization of the PR systems available. And I thought the "ranked ballot" was bad. It's really unfortunate to hear that Quebec is going this way because they have done so much work on the PR system. I heard that women in Quebec have been getting much better representation after 20 years of work taking over riding committees, have you hear anything about this? Having the 15% threshold, or having regionalism with only 3,4 or 5 seats amounts to the same thing. And I believe taking away the 2nd ballot that elects the list candidate is unheard of. Not to mention the fact that the lists themselves are usually used during a PR campaign to hold parties responsible for providing equality of gender and race on their lists. Hence the higher representation of minorities who are usually left out of politics. Eliminating the lists ensure a continued professionalization of politics further excluding the majority of citizens. And also the one ballot system would make candidates more accountable to their parties than the people they are supposed to represent... the exact opposite of the intention of the PR system. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 27, 2004, 11:03 am	#138 (permalink) (top)
Wayne Coady Sedimentary Rock Location: Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada Posts: 12	Hi SVMc: Proportional representation, is good, but still leaves the power in the hands of the party elite. We might also consider reforming the election process, by adding recall and remove lobbyest from the process. I feel that if the elected independent candidate is going to be lobbyed, then the lobbyest must go through a constituency council, not through their elected member. All I can say about Nova Scotia Politics can be sumed it in one word "Corrupt" . This province wrote the book on how to money launderning tax payers dollars. Living in a highly populated area like Toronto can be a benefit, when trying to get your message out. I know that here in Nova Scotia, the rural areas are a little slower to accept change, but if you use the switch from the Liberal or the Tories to the NDP, now that was quite a trip for many of us here to fathom, but I would say it happened because it was easier for the NDP to get their message out, because of the population base. I also noticed that callers to a local talk show have been expressing their distain for the party system and just this morning in a local paper, in the voice of the people section, a Mr Tuttle attacked the party system and would like to see independent candidates. I will post his article. This is a battle the citizens are ready for, maybe in this election they will stick with the parties, but I would be willing to say that if they screw it up, then the people would be willing to look at independent candidates.Get ready. Below this gentleman,Mr Mike Cox has been trying to promote this site and I am giving the concept much consideration, but on a provincial level first, I like to fight smaller battles first. You know one province at a time. http://www.newconsensusparty.ca/

Feb 27, 2004, 11:09 am	#139 (permalink) (top)
Wayne Coady Sedimentary Rock Location: Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada Posts: 12	Here is Mr Tuttles article in the Chronicle~Herald: http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/02/27...ers123.raw.html Eradicate parties There were several good letters on Feb. 20 and I agree with much of the content. However, Scott Campbell has missed the point that our idea of democracy seems to be electing a "party," not a government of the people for the p