Aha! Canadians!

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

We used to do something similiar here in the US where the state government would select the Senators to be sent to the federal Government but we found it concentrated way to much power into party hands instead of the voters hands. (I wonder how many of my fellow Americans even knew that)

Senators in our country have a lot more clout that Congressmen. Senators are for 6 years and there are only two per state.

But your PM is the big dog, the head honcho, the one that foreign countries think of as the leader when dealing with your nation. I would think you should have more of a direct say in who that is going to be.

I freely admit I am biased, but I think there is something wrong here. I am not bashing this Martin guy, who knows he could be a great leader, but you could end up with a very unpopular and unwanted national type leader that the people had no say whatsoever in the direct election of.

I know someone is going to spout of about the electoral college but thats apples and oranges. The main intent behind the electoral college is to be a tie breaker. It doesn't decide who is going to chosen and then puts them in place. It merely settles disputes.

And just for the record I am not Canada bashing. I make fun of Canadians the same way I would slam my buddies and friends. Thanks for the input guys I am learning new things here and thats the important part.

[Agent-Commando]

Heh, virtual dictatorship, I had never thought of it that way..


But it's true, most of you guys already covered of what the Canadian gov't is all about... and back then, it pissed the hell out of me everytime those Bloc Quebecois had a referrendum, they had like what, two in my time that I can remember and it always failed.

Then, to make matters worst, the Quebecers that I know (acquaintances I have in Quebec like Montreal and Quebec city) tells me that the people of their province thinks us people in Toronto especially hates their guts! (do u think that Chacal?) I have a friend from Montreal and that's what she told me too, I was surprised... she told me stories of her friends afraid to visit Toronto fearing racial backlash cause they speak French.. gee, talk about civil strife. Here in Toronto we don't really care at all, we just hate hearing Quebecers wanting to split this country apart and there was talks of a 3rd referrendum but it pretty much died down... ironic that Chretien was of French descent too eh?

And yeah, it's true if had Quebec splitted, they wanted to keep the Canadian currency... which to me is totally dumb, like you said Ingus, if you're going to go that way, go all the way over the edge!

[Chacal Profile Website]

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
You mean there was no election by the people? Basically Chretien retires and the board of directors picks a new CEO?

Until the next elections that is, because Chretien retired before the end of his mandate. Then people will vote for his party if they want him to be prime minister. People vote for a party as much for the party leader than the party's ideas (such as they are).

There's not such a big ideological rift between parties as there is in the US between democrats and republicans.
Mostly we vote for the guy that seems less a crook than the others. Usually we're wrong.

[lil_Tigga]

Originally posted by Agent-Commando
Heh, virtual dictatorship, I had never thought of it that way..


But it's true, most of you guys already covered of what the Canadian gov't is all about... and back then, it pissed the hell out of me everytime those Bloc Quebecois had a referrendum, they had like what, two in my time that I can remember and it always failed.

Then, to make matters worst, the Quebecers that I know (acquaintances I have in Quebec like Montreal and Quebec city) tells me that the people of their province thinks us people in Toronto especially hates their guts! (do u think that Chacal?) I have a friend from Montreal and that's what she told me too, I was surprised... she told me stories of her friends afraid to visit Toronto fearing racial backlash cause they speak French.. gee, talk about civil strife. Here in Toronto we don't really care at all, we just hate hearing Quebecers wanting to split this country apart and there was talks of a 3rd referrendum but it pretty much died down... ironic that Chretien was of French descent too eh?

And yeah, it's true if had Quebec splitted, they wanted to keep the Canadian currency... which to me is totally dumb, like you said Ingus, if you're going to go that way, go all the way over the edge!

i dont knwo why they would think that toronto is a muticultural mega city

[shockwave203 Profile]

Originally posted by Agent-Commando
Heh, virtual dictatorship, I had never thought of it that way..


But it's true, most of you guys already covered of what the Canadian gov't is all about... and back then, it pissed the hell out of me everytime those Bloc Quebecois had a referrendum, they had like what, two in my time that I can remember and it always failed.

Then, to make matters worst, the Quebecers that I know (acquaintances I have in Quebec like Montreal and Quebec city) tells me that the people of their province thinks us people in Toronto especially hates their guts! (do u think that Chacal?) I have a friend from Montreal and that's what she told me too, I was surprised... she told me stories of her friends afraid to visit Toronto fearing racial backlash cause they speak French.. gee, talk about civil strife. Here in Toronto we don't really care at all, we just hate hearing Quebecers wanting to split this country apart and there was talks of a 3rd referrendum but it pretty much died down... ironic that Chretien was of French descent too eh?

And yeah, it's true if had Quebec splitted, they wanted to keep the Canadian currency... which to me is totally dumb, like you said Ingus, if you're going to go that way, go all the way over the edge!

that's sort of similiar to the way some of western canada feels about the east. There is a lot of anger directed towards ontario/quebec, because that's where everything is decided. Western Canada has basically no say in anything,(for example: elections) although martin wants to make the west feel less isolated from eastern canada.

[Tommy Boy Profile]

Originally posted by shockwave203
that's sort of similiar to the way some of western canada feels about the east. There is a lot of anger directed towards ontario/quebec, because that's where everything is decided. Western Canada has basically no say in anything,(for example: elections) although martin wants to make the west feel less isolated from eastern canada.

Western alientation is a real problem, and IMO, was only made worse by the Reformers. The came to Ottawa to change things, and were unable to do so...

One of Canada's largest challenges is that we are rich in geography and poor in population; that is to say that we have a huge country and a small population which makes us more a "community of communities" (name the great Canadian politician who coined that phrase) than a real country. Hell look at Prince Edward Island with a population of 125,000 people...they are a province. Toronto alone has over 4,000,000 people...consider Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Iqualit, Montreal, Halifax, St. John's, etc...we truly are a country that is joined by association more than we are commonalities.

It is this diversity though which I hope will keep us united and never let us be torn apart...either Quebec from Canada or the west/east/north from central Canada. We have much more in common that each other think...

[CapriccioSCOURG]

Hah, it's funny seeing a lot of the Americans being freaked out about how the Parliamentary system works.

It's like someone being confused as to why we don't directly elect our President and Vice President.

[shockwave203 Profile]

Canada's gov't isn't focused on a single person, and I rather like it that way. it's based on an entire party, voting for the ideals that the party believes in. Leaders come and go, but the party's stay. Contrary to what others think, the liberals, under jean chretien, pulled Canada out of near bankruptcy in the early 90's and have turned this country into something great. I like the liberals, unlike most people on the western side of the country. They've done a lot of good for Canada

[Agent-Commando]

Originally posted by lil_Tigga
i dont knwo why they would think that toronto is a muticultural mega city

Yeah we are, isn't it totally amazing how we have a Asian district, Greek town, Italian town, Polish area and many others within the downtown area? Like Every year I try to get in a the Taste of The Danforth festival in the summer and you always see so much diversity. The streets are closed off, and pretty much you can enjoy all the fine foods from a dozen countries across the world in one area.

I think it's because like someone said that all of the decisions for our country is based in the province of Ontario, and it's true, Ottawa sits next to Quebec province and Toronto is a major city where a lot of things are decided so there's some alienation there from the rest of the West. Not that I support it but I really wish the rest of our country would stop having these stereotypes about us, because if they believe that about us, our own people will think things like if I go to Montreal I'm going to get hated on, and the cycle of hate would propagate like it has you know?

[Bullhead]

Originally posted by Chacal
Mostly we vote for the guy that seems less a crook than the others. Usually we're wrong.

[Chacal Profile Website]

There are a lot of good reasons that explain why Quebec wanted to separate from Canada, but almost all of them are historical and cultural.

Historical, because Canada was a french colony the British violently captured and invaded in 1760. There were some clashes later on, notably in 1837-1838 where a small uprising was bloodily quelled down by the british troops (remember that scene in "The Patriot" when the British locked a village population in a church and set it on fire? It happened to us also), in 1918 when they machine-gunned protesters against conscription, in 1970 when a few fools tried their hand at terrorism, etc. While those things are sad (my own ancestor was hanged in 1838), they happened a long time ago and almost nobody is still angered by them.

Cultural also, mainly, because we just come from 2 different roots, speak different languages, have different education. It was thus very hard on Quebecers to have a federal English-speaking government dictate matters of language and culture to them. That is the core of the dispute between the two communities and the situation has evolved much since the 1960s. Most of these matters are now provincial jurisdictions.

There was, until the 1980s, economic reasons as well. When the British invaded, they seized a lot of property and removed French Canadians from positions of power, both politically and commercially. For some time they were prevented to do any commerce at all, and became a class of low-waged laborers, working for rich british merchants under terrible conditions. The only way to escape from that form of slavery was to remain in the villages in the country, pretty much cut off from the outside world and under the authority of the all-powerful catholic church. This had the effect of preserving the french language and culture. In effect, the cities were english and the rest of the province was french. This went on for 2 centuries, during which the priests patiently selected the most promising kids and sent them to be educated in catholic schools and colleges, to become the future elite and leading class when the time would come.

The time came after WWI, when slowly the english-speaking province of lower-Canada transformed into the french-speaking province of Quebec. The educated Quebecers (who wouldn't be called French-Canadians anymore because they felt neither French nor Canadians) slowly came back into politics, finance, education, liberal arts and, finally, government.

In 1976 the nationalist Parti Québécois (Quebec Party) was elected. It was a day of great elation (I'll never forget it), but it also killed the separatist movement that brought it to power, because there was little left to fight for politically. We had won. There has been two referendums for independence since, and both times it was narrowly rejected. The fight went to the economic field and there too, we took back control of our future.

Meanwhile, the rest of Canada has grumpily shifted itself around a little and allowed Quebec it's rightful place in the federation and a much greater autonomy, I suspect partly out of fear because we came so close to leaving and frankly that would be a big chunk to lose. And besides, where would they find prime ministers?

So the scene in 2004 is very different from the one in 1976. There seems to be a way to live together, admit we're equal-rights partners, do commerce and try not to force our will on each other.

Which is now what the US has to do with Canada.

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

It's like someone being confused as to why we don't directly elect our President and Vice President.

We do directly vote for our VP and President

Now you can argue the party decides who gets to be president during the caucases but that is only in actuality not law. I don't know how many times you have voted Capricio (and that was not an age slur I believe I correctly assumed you are young? correct me if I am wrong) I've voted in 4 presidential elections now and in each one I also see several other candidates in there besides Dem's and Rep's. Independents, Green Party, Flat Earthers etc. If you went out and got a large enough petition you could be on the ballot also. You should have seen the phoofaaraa when Ross Perot was up in 92. Many of the anti-two-big-party people were going nuts in hopes we might finally break the big two party system.

Now the effect here is that the winner always comes out of the two main parties but thats just because of size and inertia. I am quite proud of how in my state our last Governor was an Indepent and was an aqeduate governor. (Jessie Ventura). Hell that second hand hack Arnie had to go to the Republicans to get elected in California.

Mostly we vote for the guy that seems less a crook than the others. Usually we're wrong.

I'd say thats a pretty fair assessment of how things work south of your border also.

Which is now what the US has to do with Canada.

Allow me to rephrase that a little. "Which is now what Canada has to do with the US" We need to cooperate and BOTH give a little to get a little.

That last big write up there was pretty informative Chacal, Well written and informative. That covered a lot of things I was unaware of. Thanks for posting it. Sadly I know more about the power structures in places like Somalia, Iraq, and Iran than I do our next door neighbor. Of course the military never asked me to do an intel write-up on Canada either

Ironically you have a similar species of people in LA (thats Louisiana folks not Los Angeles, or if you are from Alabama its Lower Alabama ) and the New Orleans area especially. The difference beijng Napoleon sold the LA purchase to America to pay for his Napoleonic wars. Many of the french descended peoples stayed in position of power and business there though. Perhaps it was a radically different situation (foremost that it was not an invasion and colonial take-over).

Of course now the language is mutated into Cajun and although by no means an expert I would hazard to guess its about as similar to modern French as Cockney is to English.

I am also intrigued by a map I had before I rebooted my hard drive (I will see if I can find it again) Which shows a distribution of Canadian population and how the majority of it is focused south and east and along the border with the US. Is this the reason behiind the western Canadians ire? I can see how popular elections would leave them feeling kind of left out. Is there a Senatorial type position in the Canadian government to make up for the lack of even population distribution as there is in the US? Our Congressmen are voted in for districts that are set up due to population. Some states have very few congressmen and some have several dozen. The Senators are two per state and a more powerful body so that California, Texas, and Florida don't mandate to the rest of the country. I apologize if that seemed like a lecture but I am unsure if you were aware of this.

Edited for typos and the p.s.

P.S. Now this is a good thread! Informative and educational. Thanks guys for posting here.

P.P.S. Mi spel chek dusint wurk

[TChicken Profile]

Slightly off topic, but I've always wondered what the stop signs say in quebec: stop or arrete? Not too
long ago the city here decided to change the french signs to say stop, but everybody complained so they didn't.

[CapriccioSCOURG]

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
We do directly vote for our VP and President

I was refering to the Electoral College, not the party conventions. There is no law that states that Electors have to vote the same was as the public, although they always have. Still, with the system it's not the same a direct popular vote.

I think the Electoral System still has merit though. You can argue that it's not needed anymore, that all other elected officials in the country are done so directly, and that people are more informed today than they were 200 years ago, when we probably actually needed the educated electors to vote for us ignorant peasants. Yes, with the Electoral College candidates try to win the big states like California, New York, and Texas. But if it was a direct election if they won all the big cities in those states, and NO ONE in half the western states, they would be very far ahead in votes. So, it gives states with smaller populations more say, even if it's not exactly "fair" per se. Then again redistricting and reaportionment of House seats isn't always fair either. And since Democrats usually win most of the votes in cities, while Republicans get most everyone in rural areas, it wouldn't be as simple that way either.

But yeah, we definitely do not elect the President and Vice President by popular vote. I mean, Gore would be president if that were the case, as he had the most popular votes. There have been four or so other Presidents who have won the Electoral vote, but not the popular ones. And then of course in some cases when there were more than two people running for office the winner will sometimes not get the majority of the votes, but he will get the most. Candidate A gets 40%, B gets 25%, C gets 35%. A wins, but didn't even half the votes of the people.

And you're right. I'm young. This year will be the first time I'm able vote in a Federal election.

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

Cool Capriccio I didn't mean to insult you by implying that, and I apologize for that comment about your picture on the other thread. It would make more sense if you knew myself and my friend Warren. He was an ardent liberal when we were in high school and you look so much like him in that picture that it was meant more as a joke to him than a slam towards you. So apologies if you took that the wrong way I was probably wrong in my phrasing of it. If anything I was comparing you to someone I like and respect. Hehe of course as he grows older he finds it harder to believe in some of the things he did so there is that for you to think about (although we still argue vociferously).

Not going to bother with searching out the info but there has only been two cases when the electoral college overruled the popular vote. Grover Cleveland was one and I cannot remember the other.

And I suspect because no one on either side of the issue is willing to be swayed by facts there will be many who will insist that Bush won that way also.

For the record I did not vote for Bush, and although I may seem a a hardcore conservative or republican to you, I am not. I am that mysterious class that is never represented in American politics, the middle of the roader. I am always defending some of the democrat actions to my conservative friends during Liberal presidencies and defending some conservative actions to my liberal friends during Conservative presidencies. In essence I cannot win .

but I believe the election was legitimate. I think the republicans really blew it by not making Mccain the nominee. He would have won hands down in a landslide, been a much better president than either two candidates, and this would not even be an issue. Hell my own dad, the worlds ultimate democratic and a 20 year union organizer, who ALWAYS votes the Democratic ticket would have voted for him.

And there is a reason that the Electoral College does not break the implied law. Its called the Second Amendment (I believe that one should be capitalized)

If I remember correctly Gore's campaign was trying to get the mail in ballots thrown out to prevent his losing numbers. Now as a former service man who has voted by that precise method while on deployment that really pissed me off. Now I know we are a democracy and one man equals one vote but I personally believe that the man serving his country has more at stake and and a more vested interest than someone who is just voting the party line.

I truly believe until we are able to distance ourselves in time from the closeness and emotion of being involved in that election no one is going to be able to view it impartially.

but enough of that! I am trying to learn more about Canadians, their system, and their views in and on their own country. I personally think its important and want to hear more!

SO POST MORE YOU DAMN CANUCKS! (What the hell is a Canuck anyway?)