Friends are Electric

Just when I thought I was free I get dragged back into it.

So I keep hearing the arguments that people `did not vote for a coalition.’  This is true.  The fact is that they did not vote for the Conservative party either.

We vote for a person, not a party.  Now, most of us do vote based on the party of our choice, however we must realise that our perceptions will not change the reality of our electoral system.  You did not vote for a coalition.  You also did not vote for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Marxist-Leninist or the Bloc Quebecois.  You vote for a single person who is theoretically supposed to represent your ideas.

Of course, not even I do this.  But I am mature and reasonable enough to realise what my vote actually means.  Please people, stop pretending that intention colours the meaning of the vote.  No individual belief or thought changes that you vote for a person, not a party.

Now we must understand this.  Anyone saying that they did not vote for a coalition is stating a fact, yes, but it does not carry the meaning they wish it to.  They are only revealing their ignorance to our electoral system or, perhaps, merely stating the obvious.  No one voted for a coalition, no one voted for the Conservative Party, no one voted for the Liberals, just as no one voted for any party.

Its just the way our government works.

Now that Parliament has been suspended for a month, it is time to examine the entire crisis as a whole.

Rick Mercer had a number of intelligent things to say on the subject.  He is essentially saying that Harper screwed up and is now clinging to power, while Dion is hell-bent on having his revenge on the Conservative Leader.

Werner Patels is saying that the NDP and its supporters are the biggest losers in the crisis, since as a member of the coalition, no one cares what Mr. Layton has to say.

I have seen people on both sides of the debate call the opposite fascists.

And I’ve seen Americans trying to explain the crisis.

On the whole, I am glad we now have a break.  Although I wish that all parties would stop spewing lies all over the place.  I can now sit back and digest exactly what happened, and perhaps muse on the best way to solve it all.  I’m still hoping that everyone can work together, but I somehow doubt that will happen.

I have read a large number of peoples’ opinions on this.  That is all they are, opinions.  There is what is legally allowed and what people consider to be moral.  Lets work at separating the two.

From past writings, I am sure it is clear which side I appear fall on this debate.   I want a functional government, be it Conservative or coalition.  To be entirely honest, all of the parties working together would be the most idea, if unlikely, solution to our `crisis.’  I honestly do not care who gets to live on Sussex Dr., so long as they govern with respect and dignity.  Whether any of the current party leaders are even capable of that is another matter which I will not consider at this time.

I have tried to point out the facts on how our democracy works all week.  In keeping with this recent tradition, I am now going to defend Stephen Harper’s actions in suspending Parliament.

First of all, this is an entirely legal action.  There is no arguing this.  Just like there was no arguing that a coalition government was illegal.  Calling either of these fabrications results only in the person making the claim displaying their ignorance or their agenda.

The morality of this action, as the morality of forming a coalition government, is entirely up for debate.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  However, I would say this is not an immoral thing to do.  Instead, I think that this was exactly what the situation called for.

Lets step back and examine exactly what suspending Parliament until the new year is going to do.

1. This will cool tempers.
   All MPs will have a chance to talk things over in detail, work out agreements if necessary, and perhaps even work together on a larger scale.  If Parliament were to continue now, harsh things could be said from emotion which were not meant.
2. The Canadian public can become better educated.
   All of the political parties have been streaming constant attacks on the opposing party for days now.  As far as I can tell, not one of these groups has actually been truthful about what is happening and what is legally able to happen.  Harper has been saying that a coalition is illegal and undemocratic, which is false, and I am sure Dion and Layton will be calling Harper a coward over todays decision.   Ideally this should stop and politicians can work to actually educate the public, rather than indoctrinating them.
3. MPs can ask their constituents what they think of any plans.
   My riding currently is represented by a Conservative who won by about 40 votes.  NDP+Liberal supporters make up a plurality in this riding.  He may be a member of the Conservative party, but I believe that he should do his best to determine what his electorate wants from him.  This advice goes for every MP in every riding.  The coalition is legal, but it is a change.  MPs deserve the time to consult with the people who they represent, both those who voted for them and those who did not, to see how the people feel.  Even though I did not vote for the Conservative candidate in my riding, I would be appalled if he ignored those in his riding just because we wear different political colours.  I already said that all of the parties working together would be the best solution in my mind.

I, however, doubt this is what will happen.  I fully expect that MPs will follow party lines on this, that all of the parties will spend the next two months filling the airwaves with the most horrendous lies and half-truths.  And when Parliament reconvenes, I fully expect nothing to have been solved.

Perhaps I am too cynical.  I know I will be in contact with my MP.  I expect the same from all other Canadians.  These are exciting political times, lets hope we do the right thing.

Its time to talk politics again.  This whole ‘crisis’ is really trying my patience.  Especially the ignorance of those who seem to speak the loudest.  So, it is now time to set the record straight.

For some reason, the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has been able to convince the masses that coalition governments are both immoral and illegal.  This is an utter fabrication.  Truthfully, Harper should have a coalition in Parliament at this very moment, since his party does not have a majority of the seats.  Furthermore, if a coalition wishes to form and have power, it is fully able to.  This is how our government is supposed to function.  Stephen Harper can behave as though he has a majority as much a he wishes, but in reality he has a minority government, and a weak one at that.

There has been talk that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe were in collusion prior to the election, and perhaps even the Liberal Party was involved.  I do not know if this is the case, however, judging by seat distribution, I can guess that this is not the case.  One merely has to look to Italy since the mid 1990s to understand why this is the case.

In Italy, they have a multitude of parties but two ‘cartels,’ organisations of multiple parties which run elections in such a way that their power base is maximised.  It works like this: In riding A, there are up to 6 parties which wish to be elected.  This is far too many parties for any to gain a clear advantage.  Parties 1-3 are some variant socialists, parties 4-6 are some conservative variant.  They all differ on the Left-Right and GAL-TAN axis, but they share similar ideals.  For instance, you could have a Communist, Socialist and Social Democratic party in one group, a Conservative, Christian Democrat and Neofascist/Neoconservative party in the other.  Riding A has a traditional (TAN) bias and favours economic conservatism, but there are a large number of Catholics and the youth are somewhat radicalised.  Parties 1-3 know that alone they will not ever win, so they form a coalition and run one candidate between them.  Although the right-tan bias nets parties 4-6 60% of the vote, they divide it equally, leaving the coalition of parties 1-3 with the seat.  This behaviour obviously necessitates the same kind of behaviour on the TAN-right, which forms its own cartel and, by these numbers, would win the seat.  If any party leaves either of the cartels, the vote splitting would reduce both the leaving party and the cartel by a significant number of seats.

Because the NDP ran against Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois in the Federal Election this October, I can be fairly sure that they were not talking to each other beforehand.  And even if they were, so what.  If GAL values would be better promoted by a single party group instead of multiple parties then so be it.  The difference in votes in many riding would mean a vastly different result if the Liberals and NDP were really working together to form a coalition in the ways which Plurality requires.

Conclusion thus far: by the methods which our Plurality functions, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals were not in collusion prior to the election, although they perhaps should have.  Even if they were talking before hand, this is entirely legitimate.  I can recall a day when there were two conservative parties in Canada, they went through similar motions before unifying to the much stronger and more functional party they have today.