I only WISH the Democrats had this much SPINE

[mudesi]

Do you remember how they caved in on so many issues over the years? How, even with majorities, still sided with the Republicans? How they refused to impeach Bush or hold him accountable in any way for his crimes?

Canadian left prepares to topple Conservative government

That's how it's done, folks. Liberals of the world, UNITE! :woohoo:

[Lautremont]

1. I'm having so much fun watching this, I have to say.

It warms the cockles.

[deaniac21]

21. What is a cockle?

[gkhouston]

24. I don't know, but your heart has them. Better get some statins, stat.

on edit:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-cockles-of-your-heart.htm

[SoCalDem]

2. Our Liberals are dyslexic..

Liberals of the World...Untie

[VADem11]

3. It's all quite surprising

I remember that people were mercilessly mocking the Liberals last year for refusing to topple the government. I guess they finally couldn't take Harper anymore.

[HEyHEY]

5. Well, this last thing was just bullshit, trying to prevent government unions from stirking

[depakid]

8. Not so much "not being able to take Harper" as it is fear of economic troubles

"The opposition says the Tories have failed to offer help to Canadians in a time of economic crisis and they plan a stimulus package to pump billions of dollars into the economy....

...Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Mr. Harper has no plan, no competence and no will to effectively address this crisis," the leaders wrote in an open letter to Canadians. "Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government and is resolved to form a government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/01/7598881.html

[fascisthunter]

4. conservatives seem to be rejected globally

gee, I wonder why...

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Go Hosers!

I don't want to start sounding like a Baldwin brother, but if they manage to pull this off, who knows.......

[onenote]

7. Didn't the Democrats just topple the conservative administration in the US?

[cali]

10. don't bother

you know what's really amusing? How freepers and other wingnuts wish that repukes had the resolve of dems, while many DUers bemoan that dems don't have the intestinal fortitude of repukes.

[Taverner]

9. Again, remember the only reason this hasn't happened until now is because

Of the lack of Liberal balls in Canada

It took the prospect of two terms of Harper to push them into putting aside their differences and forming a coalition government

We could learn from this

[Selatius]

11. The problem is the voting system in the US doesn't allow for more than two parties.

The two existing parties want no part of any reform that would allow three or four political parties to become major forces in shaping legislative policy and the direction of the country. The two pre-existing parties are perfectly happy with power being vested only in themselves. In the 1960s, they called it "the establishment" for a reason.

Any liberals that do run in the Democratic Party automatically run into disagreement with conservatives who are also in the Democratic Party. The result is the Democratic Party is fighting within itself before it can even fight the Republicans.

In Canada, the liberals went and formed the New Democratic Party because they felt the old Liberal Party was moving too far to the right. Now that the new lines have been settled, they can get on to the next task of agreeing on a way to topple the conservatives.

In the US, forming a new party on its own terms is out of the question in terms of viability, simply because of the nature of first-past-the-post voting. As a result, people are still stuck in the "trying to settle the lines" phase.

If there were a law passed tomorrow that changed the US voting system to allow multiple parties, within a few election cycles, the Democratic Party will have likely splintered apart into several parties.

As it stands, the Democrats won simply because it was the only practical alternative on the ballot from Bush and the Republicans. It is by no means clear that the Democratic Party will chart a wildly opposite course from the Republicans.

[leftstreet]

12. Good points

Also, the Republicans lost voters who considered themselves "fiscal conservatives" by embracing the religious right. But those votes didn't translate to the Dems.

A seriously disaffected portion of voters and would-be voters have fallen out of the two party system and would be ripe for the picking for multiple parties.

[Selatius]

15. I would guess I'd also add to what I said earlier by saying Obama helped with his charisma.

Obama is a very charismatic person with a new message that resonated, but in terms of setting an agenda, it takes more than a charismatic person and great oratory skills to agree on a platform to move forward. It takes an understanding that is too often lost in a zero-sum, winner-take-all format. The conservative Democrats want a pro-free trade party that shies away from addressing social issues and dislikes major outlays for social aid programs for fear of running deficits, while the liberals want a party that has a pro-fair trade stance and is not afraid to address major social issues and is not afraid to ensure the strength of social aid programs even if it means running deficits as long as it's within reason. Then, there are moderates in between the two poles who largely split themselves down the middle.

In Canada, the two camps separated and have their own platforms. They no longer spend so much energy simply seeking dominance for "one microphone." In a multi-party system, there can be more than just one microphone; there can be several.

[Libertyfirst]

19. Exactly what would such a law look like? My ballot had multiple parties.

If you mean a law requiring a majority to win an election that would further disadvantage new parties. In most states you only have to have a plurality of the votes cast. That actually helps new parties. We do have some elected officials across the US who are not democrats or republicans.

I would be interest in what kind of law you think should be passed to "allow" multiple. I would say they are already allowed, but most ambitious folks prefer not to spend years in building new parties.

[Selatius]

23. Run-off voting or some similar mechanism, which is what is often used in Europe.

In districts represented by one person, requiring a simple plurality invokes what is known in political science as "Duverger's Law." Duverger says in such a voting system, the trend is for only two viable parties to emerge. It is by no means a bedrock law in the sense that there are no counterexamples, but it is a statistical observation with such a voting system.

He published papers in the 1950s and 1960s documenting the phenomenon, noting that the form of voting system has a connection to the party system in place. He observed the exact opposite of what you are saying. Namely, plurality voting marginalizes third parties. Other systems like proportional representation or run-off voting don't marginalize them as much.

Run-off voting is but one example, used in France for example. Proportional representation is another, such as Israel. Still other examples are mixes of the two, such as Germany's mixed-member proportional representation or Sweden's Saint-Laguë method of allocating seats.

[tosh]

13. I was reading this news on another thread...

and I thought the same thing with one exception: the word SPINE is not the one I thought of.

[metis]

14. Harper

Harper and his crew are so arrogant. Go coalition! Yes we can!

[pnwmom]

16. We just toppled our conservative government. n/t

[tbyg52]

25. Yeah, but we haven't toppled our corporate government yet. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. I always get confused with world politics. Is left "left" up there like

it is down here?

[mudesi]

18. Democrats are a right wing party in Canada

Also in Britain and Denmark and Sweden and Norway and Holland.

[mudesi]

20. Hilarious quotes by conservative politicians

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1021160

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty accused the opposition parties of having no confidence in the Canadian economy.

"They would rather make a deal with the devil," Flaherty said.

"This is a coalition that's supported by separatists, people who would break up our country," said Environment Minister Jim Prentice. "This is a serious situation. It is irresponsible and it is undemocratic."

"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," Harper said.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Enrique]

22. Canadians were inspired by American democrats

we showed them how it's done. :woohoo:

[malaise]

26. It's truly fabulous

I'm lovin' it. :applause: