Slashdot Mirror
Canada Election Result Bad News For DMCA Opponents
An anonymous reader writes "For those with a stake in the opposition of Jim Prentice's C-61, the Canadian DMCA, this previous week's election results will be displeasing. The Conservative Party, which promised to reintroduce the DMCA if elected, gained 19 seats this election, mostly at the expense of the flagging liberal party, a mere 12 short of a majority government. The increase in Conservative representation, as well as the relatively low profile of this issue amidst other, more pressing concerns, increases the likelihood that the son of C-61 will come to fruition. On a positive note, the number of MPs supporting Geist's copyright pledge has increased to 34. Given the Conservative Party's historic disregard of public opinion, however, the efforts of the copyright-pledge MPs will have to rally the full opposition across three major parties in order to defeat the bill. A mere 12 MPs now stand between the Canadian public and the MAFIAA's hungry maw."
The Conservative numbers are wrong. ( 143 / 308 ) / 0.3763 = 1.23, not 2.03. The rest of your numbers seem fine, though.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I think you made a mistake on the conservative ratio there. Closer to a ratio of 1.23 in 2008. But I agree with you totally. The Cons got 27 more seats than they ought to. The NDP should have 19 more seats (56). And the Greens should have 20 seats instead of 0. Canada (and the U.S.) need proportional representation. In fact, with prorep giving 80 for the liberals, that would cover the balance of power, just barely. In 2008, with proportional representation, it could have been technically a Liberal/NDP/Green coalition majority. Instead we get stuffed with a conservative minority. Dang.
MMP failed in Ontario because it was poorly explained to voters, The and the referendum question was unclear. Also it was not full MMP, but a hybrid where the province would add additional MP's on top of the ridings based on the percentage of popular vote. These MP's would be declared on a list prior to the election, however they could also run in a riding, so a party could protect ministers who were defeated in their riding, but end up sitting as an MMP member. MMP members also would not be accountable to any riding. This is a worse system the the current first past the post system.
The current parliamentary system equally helps and hurts the conservatives and the liberals at different times. During liberal majorities the Reform and PC parties would often split votes to the benefit of the liberal candidate. No system is perfect, but historically the Parliamentary system has been probably been balanced between both major parties.
Also, it should be pointed out - and that the post clearly misses, that the Conservatives have a minority government. this means they do have the most seats of any party, but all other parties still have more seats then them - this means they need the help of another party to pass legislation. If their plans are that bad, it is the responsibility of the opposition to cause the government to fall. If they choose not to, you cant solely blame the Government for its passage.
Well, we realize that fully proportional representation would have those problems as well, which is why we were looking at mixed-member proportional, which is kind of a half and half system (though there are still more in the first past the post "half" than the proportional one). I believe you still have to get some minimum percentage of votes nationwide to get any list candidates put in as well.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
For the same reason the right Reform/Alliance/CPC united themselves. The left can't seem to compromise among themselves to rule together under a unified leftist party. And it is this failure on the left that is handing the Conservatives the power. It is either unite like the right did or change the system. The Conservatives used the existing electoral system to rebuild. The left realize the system that worked so well for them for over 100 years now puts them on the defensive. I'm a Liberal who actually voted Federal Conservative for the first time (I always vote Conservative provincially in ALberta to create an NEP firewall). The left is weak and ineffective and want to destroy confederation by alienating the west. I'll vote federal Liberal again when they realize that Canada exists west of the Ontario/Alberta border. Electoral reform at the Federal level to me would include a shift to proportional representation, abolishing the senate, and guaranteed seats in Parliament for aboriginals.
Meanwhile, with the US struggling to patch the holes in the fantasy banking game... er, I mean system... I'm inclined to think Canada's leaders should whore themselves out a little less to foreign interests, and a little more to local interests. Why enact more US-friendly laws, when their money has the not-so-remote possibility of going south of the peso ? Does Harper sign anti-piracy deals with Malaysian interests ? No ? Then he shouldn't sign them for US interests either.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
There were so many people caring that they've prevented the last two from going through.
No, timing and the way the Westminster parliamentary system works prevented them from going through. They weren't voted down, they died on the floor because of an election.
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
I don't think you understand how Canadian politics works. Unlike in the USA, the Prime Minister is a member of the house and has direct control over the party stance. This, coupled with extremely strong party discipline (you vote with the party EVERY time or you get kicked out, ruining your career), means that the P.M. is far more powerful than the President (within the political system; not in terms of overall world power) because in a majority government, the P.M. can pass basically any law he wants, as long as it satisfies the constitution.
That's not the case though, since he only has a minority of seats. Unfortunately, if a law fails to pass and it's an important one (read: whatever they want, so basically all of them), then the government fails and we have an election. But the Liberals won't allow this because they are very weak and would likely lose more in another election. If they go to the polls, it'll be about the budget or the Afghan war, not a copyright bill. TL;DR:
The bill will pass because the opposition Liberals have too much to lose in the election that will be called if it fails. End of Story.
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
Under most parliamentary systems, MP's are far, far more likely to strictly tow their party line than in, say, the United States. This is because under such a system legislation is proposed by party leaders (when they are in power) rather than through any kind of committee system. Therefore, MP's rely on their party leaders to grant earmarks to their constituents, and thus vote more or less exactly as they are told so they will be looked upon more favorably when the time comes to distribute the pork.
See lament for a nation
Book info (amazon)
http://www.amazon.ca/Lament-nation-defeat-Canadian-nationalism/dp/0886292573
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lament_for_a_Nation:_The_Defeat_of_Canadian_Nationalism
Lament for a Nation is a 1965 essay of political philosophy by Canadian philosopher George Grant. The essay examined the political fate of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government in light of its refusal to allow nuclear arms on Canadian soil, and the Liberal party's political acceptance of the warheads.
Although grounded in the particular examination of Diefenbaker's fate in the 1963 federal election, the analysis transcended Canadian politics, studying Canadian and American national foundations, Conservatism in Britain and North America, Canada's dual nature as a French and English nation, the fate of Western Enlightenment, and the philosophical analysis of citizenship in modern democracies.
Content
According to Grant, Diefenbaker's position against the Bomarc was defeated by the Central Canadian establishment, who conspired with the Liberal Party to bring down Diefenbaker and diminish Canadian sovereignty. This was his lament; he felt there was an emerging Americanization of Canadians and Canadian culture due to the inability of Canadian to live their lives outside of the hegemony of American liberal capitalism - and the technology that emanates from that system.
Critical reception
Described as one of the seminal works of Canadian political thought, it discusses the influence of the United States via liberalism and technology on Canada - which Grant argued was traditionally a less-liberal and more traditionally conservative entity and culture. Grant argued that Canada was doomed as a nation as was illustrated by the 1963 Bomarc Missile Program crisis. He predicted the end of Canadian nationalism, which for Grant meant a small-town, populist conception of Canada as a British North American alternative to American capitalism and empire, and a move towards continentalism.
No, it doesn't. You pretty much have the same thing with your electoral colleges. Take a look at your ratios some time; there's a reason why people had such a hue and cry over Bush being elected over Gore when the popular vote didn't reflect the victory.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Hell no! Quebec is much more progressive than France in that regard. In fact, one of the reasons that the Tories were unable to get a majority is because they want to introduce legislation to punish young offenders more severely. There was a massive backlash in Quebec to this proposal and the Tories were unable to get more seats in the province.
Not quite correct. If a bill fails to pass and IF the bill is a confidence vote then the government is dissolved. Not all bills are confidence votes. A budget is ALWAYS a confidence vote for example but not every bill is declared confidence. Also individual MP's are allowed to vote their conscience in some instances. You are not always forced to vote with the party. As for the liberals not allowing the gov to fall and so going along with the Conservatives just to avoid it, historically we the Canadian people vote against a party who has too many elections in a short period of time. In this case, it would be the conservatives since they would force it into a vote of confidence not knowing they would win it hands down. Only the party in power can declare a confidence vote.
then express your intolerance and make a hypocritical ass of yourself.
If people are not allowed to be disgusted at intolerance, than exactly how is it to be mitigated or eliminated?
Maybe I should just continue serendipitously skipping as the poor, the people of color, the people with opposing political views to the conservative machines are targeted and persecuted merely for wanting to live their lives the way they wish?
Liberals don't engage in such agendas. The ONLY thing they limit is behaviors which interfere with the lives of others.
Unless of course you consider money to be "just as important" as basic liberties, food, shelter, and medicine.
"Oh god, don't tax me a tiny portion of my income to assure my fellow man doesn't starve, exposed to the elements, just because insurance companies won't cover his pre-existing condition"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!