Canadian election

[Gorak]

The first guy cites his sources at the bottom. it is presented is a silly way, but it is still valid.

MPs cannot really vote against party lines in Canada. Technically they can, but they can also be kicked out of their party for it. Your MP will probably support the bill regardless of what was said.

they can and they will if their constituents petition for it.
They know if they go against  their constitutes petitions, they will lose their riding, and their party knows if their MP's lose their riding's, they lose their seats in the house, and their majority gov.
That is how democracy is supposed to work in this country. When it doesn't work, it's usually because the people are to lazy to get off their butt and make their voice heard to their MP's, instead being content to just sit back and dog about the government.
If there is only a few people voicing their concerns about a bill to the MP of that riding, they will be ignored. That is the problem, people need to be more actively involved.

[Shadow]

You've hit the nail on the head. <60% voter turnout. Un-freaking-believable.

Regardless, a majority can do a lot of damage in four years. I think you will see just how much, coming up.

[Gorak]

we'll see, but I think you'll find things are not going to be nearly as bad as you think.

the fact that they are abolishing the complete waste and pointless drain of tax dollars that is the current long gun registry makes me happy right from the get go

[Shadow]

You don't have any problem with renaming the Government of Canada to Harper Government?

I know it seems like something not important, but it is a stop toward something that is. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door_technique


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Hope+springs+eternal+Canadian+conservatives/4746691/story.html

^ a rather good article (written by a conservative who voted for Harper) and he hits on a very good point. Conservativism, in the sense that most people who vote conservative mean, is a combination of free markets, small government, fiscally conservative spending, and lots of personal freedom. I am fully behind these principles. I believe government should be small, that it should not interfere with the daily lives of citizens, and that markets should be left alone, except to regulate monopolies and punish price-fixing. For spending policy I believe a more context sensitive approach is needed, since historically fiscal conservativism has more often then not led to deficits.

If the CPC actually stood for these things, I would have voted for them too.

Harper and the Conservative part of Canada do not do these things. Instead of small government, they expand it, with their warrant-less online surveillance and military increases. The size of government has increases 17% since he got his first minority. Their spending is far from fiscally conservative (the G20, new fighter jets, and a truly record-breaking debt spring to mind). And while getting rid of the long gun registry will save a small amount of money (perhaps a few % over the next 4 years of what Harper blew in 72 hours at the G20), police forces have condemned the move since the registry has been instrumental in prosecuting murders.

So, after voting for a party that was supposed to shrink government and increase personal liberty, you now (will) have bigger government, surveillance of your online activity, and reckless spending on a military we do not need. (An increased naval presence in the arctic would be military spending that I would support, but note that for that, you need boats more than planes, and boats are available much cheaper).

So I don't know. If the above reasons were your reasons for voting conservative, why did you? Because it's not what you're getting, by a long shot.

[Shadow]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=4793231