Hi All,
October 14th we go to the polls here.
It has been a long and gruelling campaign; 4 weeks so far..
I voted early; paper ballot, will be counted by a person with others watching and we will know our results the same night.
Any questions and those paper ballots will come out of their secure storage and be counted again under supervision of a judge and officers etc..

Anyways, your politics are of course more interesting and things like the stock market affect us too. (price of beaver pelts and maple syrop is dropping daily)

This isn't new; actually resurrected from 4 years ago;

A flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The possibility of a McCain/Palin election is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota .

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.

When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blareRush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."


Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.


"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. "They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the McCain administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to shoot wolves from airplanes, deny evolution, and act out drills preparing them for the Rapture.

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways ofcrossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s.

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.

"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history and English majors does one country need?"


We are hoping to get rid of our own little baby Bush wannabee; Harper, or at least weaken him enough in a minority government that we can keep him in check.
Good luck,

You hoser! We're just up dere for a six of Molson and watch Les Canadien's try and win Lord Stanley's cup again, eh?

See youtube clip below; 'please accept all of our NHL teams, which one by one are going under and moving to your fair country'..

Revenge for Toronto winning at baseball? ;-)

Always welcome; no need to bring the tanks; if you don't plug them in at night they will never start again..
Cheers, (and we have much better beer than Molson)

My favorite national anthem has always been "Oh Canada!" I hope to learn this song from my "Rosetta Stone" French/Canadian language CDs as I dig a "secret underground subway" from Maine to New Brunswick . Sac're Bleu !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htsy2g-tWRY

Sorry I couldn't help posting this one...

What to Drink When Your Chasing Beaver

BTW seriously hows that election thing going? You guys do it a lot differently up there. It's quick and clean from what I've heard, my friend mcc1 has been telling me about it.

Stephen Harper when he got elected passed legislation calling for a fixed four year election date. However, he saw an opportunity in the polls to get a majority government so he broke his own law and called a snap election.

Since it was called, the world economic crises struck. His tepid "There's nothing wrong with our Canadian economy" approach even as the TSX collapsed has caused the Conservatives to drop in the polls. We may wind up right where we started the election. If the Conservatives get in a minority government again most Canadians will be satisfied. Canadians like minority governments since there's a spirit of compromise, most of the time, which isn't there when there's a majority government. The exception to the rule is Stephen Harper's government.

The most interesting thing that happened is Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader was denied a spot in the Leaders Debate. This outraged Canadians so much that they wrote angry emails to the press conglomerate, and the parties. Phone in programs were swamped. Even the Conservative Party supporters thought she should be let in, if only to watch her crash and burn. In the end public pressure forced the party leaders and the press conglomerate to cave in and let her debate. She performed quite well.

I early voted last night!! paper ballot! felt great! NO HARPER MAJORITY!!!

Let's see,
I have never heard of 'caging' up here; I think if we do 'provisional ballots' they actually get counted.

As I said; Paper Ballots. We have one tenth the population of the USA but lots of distance and variation in 'ridings'. (voting districts)

We have adjustments to the riding boundaries with population growth etc. but I don't think there is the blatant re-districting (gerry-mandering).. Just thinking of all the things the Republicans are going to scream about when it's no longer their turn.

Big difference; Public funding for a good part of the campaigning but also, free-time advertising on OUR public airways. They are ours after all, so are yours.

Minority governments; The party 'in power' (Funny; our conservatives are in the 'Conservative' party and liberals in the 'Liberal' party) has the most seats but less than a full 50% +1, so the other parties allow them to govern until there is something they won't go along with and if a major bill is defeated, the government is 'brought down'.

No veto or signing statements, I suppose way back the Queen could have been said to have a 'veto' by way of 'royal assent', but we do have our Senate; 'the house of 'sober second thought'. Bills can be sent back from there.

Not perfect but it works for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg&NR=1
(Canadian identity via a beer ad)
Cheers,

Forgot; the three / four party system leads to 'strategic voting', meaning if you want to vote Green party you have to watch that they don't siphon off votes from the Liberals, allowing the Conservatives to sneak in with less than a real majority.

This is in a particular riding; eg Conservatives, 20k votes, Liberals, 18k, NDP, 15, Green, 10k... The Cons win the seat.

No electoral college; each riding is one seat in Parliament; whoever has the most forms the government. Coalitions are rarely official / total; parties just make agreements on what they will support.
Cheers,

the land of healthcare for all...How do you it?

Do they primarily vote along party lines in Parliament?

For those not familiar with Canadian politics.

We have the following parties: Conservatives Part of Canada: The mainstream right wing party. Formally the Progressive Conservative Party, but back in the early 90's a western a radical right wing "populist party" called the "Reform Party" broke away from the PC party and started winning some seats in the west. When the PCs collapsed the Reform party started to gain popularity, eventually going through a number of "rebirths" and finally merging with the old PC party.

The CPC is probably about on the same "left/right" spectrum as the Clinton Republicans, maybe slightly to the right, but not nearly as far right as the Republicans (but they're trying, but at this point the Canadian people would never vote for them if they were that far right.)

The Liberals: The "Natural ruling party" as they are sometimes called. This party is considered "centrist in Canada, which puts them probably somewhere between the Democrats and Kucinich (closer to Kucinich.) They probably would still be in office except for a scandal where some people connected to the Liberals misdirected some government money into advertising for the Liberals in Quebec. No politicians were ever charged let along found guilty, but the "sitnk" of the scandal, the fact that they were in power "forever", and another fake scandal regarding an RCMP investigation against the Liberal finance minister (later learned that the investigation was based on nothing at all, and may have actually been a political move by the RCMP commissioner at the time, who later had to resign because of his own incompetence and corruption, to get the Conservatives elected.) put them into opposition, and the Conservatives in a minority government.

The NDP (New Democratic Party): The left leaning party, probably to the left of Kucinich. You could at one time count on the NDP to support any and all social progress (they lead the charge on equal marriage and equal rights for the full spectrum of "sexual identity" issues.) Lately though, they've started drifting to the centre a bit, IMO due to a resurgence in their popularity giving them the taste of possible power, and a perceived attack on their left flank by the Green Party. I will probably vote NDP this election but I'm in a safe NDP riding anyway (Jack Layton, the party leader) but if there were another viable option on the left I would for them since the NDP have been pulling back on fully supporting some sexual identify issues, some discrimination issues, and separation of church and state issues, which doesn't make me very happy with them (I dropped my membership due to these issues.)

The Green Party: A relatively new party that is starting to get a decent representation of the popular vote, reaching the double digits in some areas. This party was originally created and lead by a businessman, IMO using the "green label" to put a friendly face on corporate interests (using right wing arguments that used fake environmental concern to dress up corporate environmental deregulation as being necessary to save the environment ... same kind of nonsense the Bush was pulling with his "clear skys" initiate, and such fraudulent tactics. Lately though a new leader of the Green party has taken over, and while she is not what I would call "socially progressive", she is a tested environmentalist. They may be worth taking a look at in the future, but right now I don't think they are as socially progressive as the NDP, while I believe the NDP are probably just as environmentally progressive as the greens.

The Bloc Quebecois: This is the Quebec "separatist party. Their main goal has always been to either separate Quebec from Canada, or if the political environment was not ripe for separation, then to just use it as a blunt weapon to get more federal money for Quebec. Personally I have no issue with this party, as I firmly believe that if Quebec wants to leave, and they democratically decide for such a course of action then I don't see why it should not be allowed. I wouldn't want it to happen, but if the democratic process is followed, then I would want the negotiations to take place in as amiable a fashion as could be possible. Other than that, the BQ are actually very progressive most of the time ... they do tend though to put "nationalism" ahead of most issues, so that if minority issues (or any other issue) ever came to conflict with their goal of separation, then I believe they would drop the minority in favour of promoting separation. The BQ currently have at times been the official opposition party, and usually hold 50 plus seats in a 301 seat parliament, giving them some serious power in a minority government.

The current status of the government is with the Conservatives holding a minority government with enough seats that any one opposition party voting with them keeps the government from falling and calling a new election due to a "confidence" vote, where a vote in parliament on a government motion, and declared an issue of "confidence" (all money bills, and whatever the government claims as a "matter of confidence") fails.

The Conservatives were in the position where for the most part, because of the weakness of the Liberals, and the power leverage of the NDP & BQ, where they could have remained in power as until their own "fix election" requirement came due. But, the Conservatives saw a change in the polls where Canadians were more and more comfortable with the Conservatives, and decided that it was a good time to call an election and try for an outright majority.

Since they called the election, many things have changed, and at this point it looks like we will be getting another minority government. The conservatives will still probably be the largest party, and so will form the government, but it remains to be seen where the balance of power will lie ... will it be the same as before with all the opposition parties having to agree to bring down the government, or will the majority lie with just two of the 3 opposition parties, meaning that one opposition party alone, caving in to the CPC, can not prop up the government?

I saw this the other day...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8yZUEtNfdE

Primarily, but not always. I think we vote along party lines a lot more than the US houses, but that is not required. It's also more likely that a party representative voting against their party "whipped vote" will be "punished" for such a vote. The leader of a party can declare any vote as "whipped" or open to voting by conscience or representative of your riding ... but there is no real "rule" that forces anyone to vote in either manner.

A parties constitution is usually called on to determine what punishment might take place for defying the will of the party, or its leader ... some members do get kicked out of caucus for such acts.

I think "parties" in a parliamentary system are much more powerful than in a republican system as the rules make it possible for a vote on a matter of "confidence" to bring down the sitting government, where the American system requires a vote of impeachment and a conviction on the charges before anything like that can happen, and even then, it's only specific people that are brought down, and not the "government" per say.

Also, the Parliamentary system determines the "government" based on the party and the number of seats it wins ... it would be as though the President was picked from the leader of the party in congress that won the most congressional seats.

so do the parties get together and side with other parties to get things passed. say the greens side with the liberals on a health care issue in exchange for an environmental vote from them later on kinda thing?

Yes, sort of.

Usually it's the government that brings forward any bills that get voted on, although there are some limited chances for the opposition parties to bring forward their bills as well.

Usually the "bargaining" takes place in the committee meetings (same idea as congressional and senate committee meetings.) This is where the parties would hammer out what gets added to and taken out of the original bill ... I'm not positive, but I believe that there is very little bargaining of the type you mentioned as it would probably be considered "bribery" for a Member of Parliament to actually agree to "vote for your bill if you vote for my bill" kind of thing.

The difference here is that there is a lot less "earmark" type deals in money bills, since it is the party as a whole that usually decides how the party members are going to vote, especially with budgets and money matters, and a party would not care as much if "MP Joe Litteguy" wants to build a "bridge to nowhere" ... there still is this kind of "vote buying" that goes on, but it's based on party needs rather than individual vote getting ... no CPC government is going to give a riding a "bridge to nowhere" just to get a Liberal member to vote for their bill (and vise versa)... they might give that riding a Bridge to nowhere if they though that the voters would vote CPC in the next election though. .. but that wouldn't likely be though the bill itself, but more through influence of the minister in charge of the particular department.