Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

[diamondD]

And a majority of the Electoral College. Don't forget that.

[WACF]

Originally posted by diamondD
And a majority of the Electoral College. Don't forget that.

Is that the popular vote or something else?

[UGS]

Originally posted by WACF
This group is hidden first off.

The Reform party believed in corporate tax cuts in order to enable companies to remain competitive...thus expanding and employing people.

The Liberals were media darlings...believe me...if the media was involved we would of found out about this stuff.
With all the negative campaigning and fear mongering if this was more fact than fiction the Liberals would of used it.
The Liberals brought up abortion as a fear tactic...and it may of worked in Toronto.
It was a non issue.

Believe me...if Harper moved as far right as Bush his term would be his last term.

Do not take this the wrong way...and I apologize to those I may offend.

The Canadian public would not put up with as much as you guys do.

The minute the right touches workers rights or changes labour laws(more a provincial jurisdiction anyways) the party will pay the price.

If Harper moves to far the right he will be tossed out...I guarantee it.

I'd have to agree for the most part. The Supreme Court is EXTREMELY left wing. . .I can't see them standing for any change that is too radical. I'd bet that gay marriage and abortion rights are safe, regardless of what Harper says. Unfortunately, they have little influence on Harper's foreign policy.

[FORD]

Originally posted by WACF
Is that the popular vote or something else?

No, the electoral college is a useless relic of our colonial days, back when our so called "founding fathers" decided that the common man was really "unqualified" to actually vote for President, and that we needed a group of elitists to do so on our behalf.

The number of electoral votes is equal to a State's number of Congressional representatives, both the House and the Senate. Every state has two Senators, but some of the least populated states only have one congressman, so those states would have only 3 electoral votes. On the other hand, California, the most populated state, has 54 electoral votes, (meaning they have 52 congressional districts)

Since the "electors" are supposed to vote according to the will of the people, the electoral college is usually a formality. However, in the year 2000, the electors from the state of Florida were forced to use Katherine Harris' deliberately innacurate early "certified" numbers, as a complete count of the votes was stopped by the Supreme Court.

There was another exception back in the 1870's which was also the result of some similar partisan bullshit.

The electoral college might have made some sense back in the days when results of a national election couldn't possibly have been known at the end of the day, due to limits in the ability in communications technology. But now, it is completely worthless, and should be abolished.

[WACF]

Thanks...it took a couple reads to figure that out.

I see what you mean with it not being needed today.

[diamondD]

Don't worry. You'll get plenty of chances to read it again...

[scamper]

Originally posted by FORD
No, the electoral college is a useless relic of our colonial days,

so is the two party system, they're fucking us

[Full Bug]

Interesting post FORD, a shame its a bunch of crap though.....

[Angel]

True. How could we return to "social conservatism and social values" when Canada has NEVER been that way to start with?

Our former Conservative parties & governments were always PC (Progressive Conservative).

And Bug, look out, by next election, I may be the one running in Edmonton Centre.

[Full Bug]

Originally posted by Angel

And Bug, look out, by next election, I may be the one running in Edmonton Centre.

Hey, if anyone could do it you could, if you get in I expect a job in the civil service where I get paid to do nothing all day.... :D