Just thought y'all might like to know that we Canucks are heading to the polls this coming Monday for a federal election.

There is much amazement (and, it has to be said, some amusement) up here that we may know who our new PM is before you know who your prez is. In the Canadian federal system (which is modelled on the British parliament) the Prime Minister is the leader of the party which wins the most seats in the election. There are 301 seats and to win a majority government the winning party needs to capture 151 or more seats.

By the by, the winning party in Canada almost nevers wins more that 50% of the vote. Indeed in some years majority governments have been formed with 36% of the popular vote. This is due to the fact that we have 5 major political parties and we use the "first past the post" system for determining the winner of a seat. Despite this, very rarely do we have complaints about a newly elected gov't not having a proper mandate etc.

My own prediction for the Canadian election is the the Liberals (in US terms, left wing Democrats) will squeak out another small majority gov't. The electorate may well surprise the polls and pundits and elect a minority Liberal gov't, in which case the Liberals will have to form a coalition with one of the smaller parties.

If any of you are interested in reading more about the Canadian election (and also about how the US election is playing up here) the CBC web site is a good place to look:

www.cbc.ca

Regards

JC

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000

Answers

Hey, Johnny, have I got some links for you!

Canadian Federal Election Riding by Riding Prediction

Alliance Exposed

Th e Strategic Voting List

(Not every Albertan's a redneck.:)

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 24, 2000.

Hey Viewer,

I know not *every* Albertan is a redneck :) When my family emigrated from Northern Ireland our first landing in Canada was Calgary for 2 years.

I was out in Alberta and northern BC in the summer of 98 and most folks out there don't "get" Ontario/Central Canada. They can't comprehend that most Ontarians are actually quite small-c conservative. We don't like radicals, especially radicals who seem to have hidden religious agendas. There are a ton of people in Toronto who have left/fled from countries with fundamentalist governments telling them how to lead moral lives, and those folks sure as hell don't want to elect a similar kind of gov't in Canada.

Thanks for the links, by the way. Some interesting reading.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.

Johnny,

I enjoy Eric Margolis' column. I'm not sure how "Canadian" he is since he seems very conservative but it's a relief from Thomas Friedman's column in the NYT

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), November 24, 2000.

We don't like radicals, especially radicals who seem to have hidden religious agendas.

Let's hope the rural Ontario vote also reflects that dislike. The religious agenda is not so "hidden," if you read what they've been saying all along, but it's their ultraconservativism that is especially frightening.

BTW, one of the links on the "exposed" page leads to the summation of Alberta's Ethics Comissioner of an investigation he was required to do about the behaviour of the new socred/reform/alliance leader. Day was exonerated; the Comissioner is a retired tory party hack, a former minister from Lougheed's regime.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 25, 2000.

I wonder if any of you Canadians have been to Switzerland? lots of referendum voting there and ,,, what an intelligently run society.

The notion of citizens using referenda to turn their society into a fascist state sounds a little strange doesn't it? Is this what Hitler did?

For instance, a national referendum on abortion would land us right back where we started because most people are already happy with the current arrangement. What percentage of the population is anti abortion? not even near 50% that's certain.

The Liberals are not interested in giving this power to all Canadians, they want it for themselves. I hope they get power so they can have the detiorating economy to show us how wonderful they are.

-- Will (tired_of@mediasuperficiality.TVisBS), November 25, 2000.

Can't let this one pass unanswered.

...wonder if any of you Canadians have been to Switzerland? lots of referendum voting there and ,,, what an intelligently run society.

Yes, I have been to Switzerland, and I continue to correspond by email with friends there. I agree they have an intelligently-run society, but I suspect that is more because of the type of people they are and because of their history than it is because of their referenda. My friends complain they are required to go to the polls too much, and they complain about the cost. One estimation of the cost of one referendum in Canada is $150 million; probably that money could be much better spent.

Besides, all political parties run constant polls every year (not just during elections) to ascertain what citizens are thinking about any and every particular topic. Much cheaper than referenda, and probably accomplishes the same purpose. You might respond that leaders do not have to follow the guidance of polls, and that is true--glaring example to follow. However, we cannot be guaranteed that leaders would necessarily follow referenda either, or that they would word the referenda so clearly that everyone would comprehend what exactly they are voting for (witness the wording of the last Quebec referendum on separation.)

Glaring example of poll results not respected: polls consistently show that over 50% of Albertans support federal gun control legislation, yet the Alberta government still proceeded to contest said legislation at the Supreme Court level, in spite of the wishes of its citizens. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not support Klein's arguments.

The notion of citizens using referenda to turn their society into a fascist state sounds a little strange doesn't it? Is this what Hitler did?

Probably the concern about referenda is first, cost; and, second, purpose. As the www.22minutes.com "challenge referendum" demonstrates, wisdom does not necessarily need to be a driving factor behind the proposal to have a referendum. Much energy could be diverted to unnecessary struggles that could be better channeled elsewhere.

For instance, a national referendum on abortion would land us right back where we started because most people are already happy with the current arrangement. What percentage of the population is anti abortion? not even near 50% that's certain.

Agreed. You make my point about the waste of time, money and energy a referendum on this particular subject would be. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be discussing these subjects--we should be, and we do. But for every minute I have to spend re-fighting battles already won, I lose time I could be spending fighting battles of the present and future, such as WTO and what it means.

The Liberals are not interested in giving this power to all Canadians, they want it for themselves. I hope they get power so they can have the detiorating economy to show us how wonderful they are.

hmmmm The Liberals get power from Canadians, not give. That's what democracy is all about. Unfortunately, in this election they will probably get power simply because they are seen as the better alternative to the extreme right. As for "deteriorating economy," it would appear that the Canadian economy has improved since they've been in power, not deteriorated. What has deteriorated since they've been in power has been our beloved health care system, and only one party has truly taken them to task about that.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 25, 2000.

PS Many Swiss hold dual citizenship in Canada. Must be a "beautiful mountains" thing. :)

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 25, 2000.

Viewer:

I'm sure the cost/number of referenda could be adjusted using the referenda itself. That's the beauty of it.

" political parties run constant polls every year"

If your happy having a few people pose the questions and interpret the results then you get the government you deserve, you have put little effort in and you will get little out. That is the story of Canada, for two generations we've had fat, happy and stupid times.

The Swiss may not like the expense but they actually have the money to to pay for it, not like the basket case Canada is, collective government debt at about one trillion dollars,,,,pathetic.

The liberals have had the largest hand in this disgrace since the war,the anti-christ err Mr. Day has had none. Everytime somebody yells about an emergency room problem (and they should)they should also think about the waste of Chretien, billions wasted strategically to keep themselves in power. Canadians are getting the country they deserve, and I hope they keep getting it. Any country that cannot distinguish legislatively between an urban dweller and a rural property owner is obviously got some learning to do.

-- Will (canadians@dogma.cbc), November 25, 2000.

Will,

You may be right about we Canadians getting the country we deserve, but in this election there are *no* palatable choices on the ballot.

We can re-elect Chretien and hold our nose about his broken promises ("kill the GST" etc.) and old-time political style (jobs/grants for the boys...); we can decide to go with an under-educated christian fundamentalist (note I am not saying that fundamentalists are under- educated, just this one) who is somewhat beholden to some of the most right-wing people in Canada; we can vote for a retread who managed to screw up as a minority gov't PM 20 years ago (but who is the best debater of the lot of them); or we can vote for a social-democrat party that thinks you are rich if you earn $60K per annum.

Lovely list, ain't it?

What this country is crying out for is a leader who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We actually have such a politician: Paul Martin, the current Finance Minister. Polling and anecdotal data suggest that Martin would absolutely cream Stockwell Day if Martin were the Liberal leader. Canadians like Martin's fiscal abilities and, unlike Chretien, he has a much better personal reputation. He is also socially liberal in that he falls in the great middle ground most Canadians occupy (supporting the current abortion laws, same-sex benefits, tight gun control laws etc.). But bad blood between him and Chretien means that Chretien has done everything in his power to thwart Martin's leadership hopes. Another lovely aspect of Chretien's personality.

But...but...but... are the alternatives to Chretien worse? Yes, IMHO. So Chretien will squeak in again. My best case scenario is that he will only get a minority gov't and pressure from his caucus will result in him stepping down after a decent interval.

To address your points about a referendum, I would say that national referendums are useful for things like massive constitutional change (eg Quebec separatism, changing the constitution), but I have to agree with viewer that the cost and complexity (of defining clear questions) of referendums on social issues is too high. My other worry is that when gov't policy is dictated by referendum we will become even more beholded to well-financed special interest groups than we already are.

PS - "Viewer": if you wish, could you drop a line to my e-mail address j_canuck@hotmail.com ? I'd like to discuss a couple of things with you offline.

Regards

JC

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.

JC

Getting excited about the results of this election is impossible, regardless of what happens. I'm looking for comic relief mostly, getting most of that in the US just now.

-- Will (devil@deepblue.sea), November 25, 2000.

Excited or not, here come the result s.

-- polls (c@n.close), November 27, 2000.