Where to from here?

[cowman]

emerald: Why is it wrong that Ontario has 100 seats? I thought with their population they were entitled to even more seats? I wonder how many voters it takes to make up a seat in Toronto? How about in PEI? In a democracy isn't every vote supposed to be equal? How can that be if you don't have an equal vote?
I believe PEI has four seats? Perhaps that should be reduced?
I wonder also if we had equal numbers if the west would have more of a voice or less? In a true democracy we might have even less input?
Our democracy is in fact mob rule. The majority can always vote away the rights and wealth of the minority? Thus we have the mob voting to take our wealth and give it too the likes of Quebec and the Maritimes?
A much better system is a republic where the rights of the individual are more important than the voting power of the mob?

[FarmRanger]

Having checks and balances is also important. We have a senate which is supposed to be a house of sober 2nd thought. In reality it is an appointed bunch of party hacks who rubber stamp whatever the Prime Minister sends to them. When all we hear from them is snoring and rumblings of wanting to legalize marijuana, I think its pretty clear how much actual value we get from them.

Another check and balance should be our media. The problem with having government funded news media is we can be sure they will look after the ones doling out the money. Harper would get a lot better press coverage if one of his platforms was increasing the CBC budget(don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating this!). Unfortunately, this policy would quickly get stolen by the Libs and we’d be back to where we are with an even more “bought” media(with the sanctioning of the opposition in this scenario). I don’t agree with any government money going to news media, as it naturally causes biases toward the ruling party and status quo. Most of Canadian media is biased toward the left and this might change if there were no tax $ going to fund them. We don’t need a propaganda ministry, which I am sorry, but frankly, this is what the CBC appears to have become. They already have a Liberal at the head and I am not so naïve as to think this doesn’t have some influence on what gets broadcast to the masses. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

Does the print media in Canada also get government money? I know there are protections for magazines like MacLeans, but is there direct government money going to them or the large newspaper chains as well?

There was a survey of Canadian media about a year ago (someone correct me on this please) and something like 80% of respondents considered themselves left of center. If this doesn’t have an influence on the way news is reported, I don’t know what does. Who is more likely to get the praise of his superiors, the one who zealously exposes government corruption, or the one who can scoop some ethnic slur, or anti-abortion comment from a right of center opposition member? If the vast majority of media has a left wing bias, then they would also have their own personal reasons for skewing the news. There will be a natural tendency to spin a news item to reflect these biases. Its small wonder that conservative leaders have to be squeaky clean to survive, while watching their liberal and NDP counterparts get away with murder, well, not murder perhaps, but at least theft of $50,000 dollar rings.

Which brings me to the legal system, which is aptly named because it doesn’t seem to bring justice as often as it should. When we are more concerned about registering gopher guns than keeping dangerous offenders behind bars, what does that tell us? How much of that gun registry money could have been spent on better policing and prosecution? Will there be a media exercise to make sure that gopher guns are stored properly, prosecute those who haven’t, and then tell us how many “offenders” the system is catching?

I prattled on too long here perhaps, any comments?

[silverback]

Good points farm ranger. The problem I see is that if you try and be squeeky clean the media hammers you for being out of touch and too clean. If you say you believe in a christian god you quickly become a religous zealot. If you say you like to spend time with your family you are not commited enough to run the country and you don't know anything about the real business world.

Your other point about polls on people's leanings to the left was interesting. Should we really believe that? Or is it more spin to try and convince us that we could not possibly vote for anyone other than those in the "center" or "left". The U.S. media would have had us believe that they wanted a left leaning gov't as well, but when it came to vote, they chose someone who was speaking towards traditional family values and more to the right of center. I wish that the media would have to publish the questions that polls ask instead of just their opinions of what the results are.

[silverback]

FarmRanger, not to mention Senator Tommy Banks having nothing to do but advocate that we should all be riding bicycles to work to conserve energy!!!!!
Cowman, I think that we need representation by region vs population. Don't ask me how it can be accomplished .

[cakadu]

Like it or not, the only two leaders in this mess who have held on to their principles (and I use the term loosely here) are Layton and the one emrald mentioned - Duceppe. They have remained true to their respective party platforms. Both Martin and Harper are teetering on not having much credibility at all - one for looking like he will try and hang on to power at any cost and the other looking like he wants power at any cost. Great choices aren't they.

Cowman, Harper may not want to disclose too much at the outset, but in order to get the votes that he so desperately covets, he has to give us something to go on besides continuing to point out the faults of the other guy.

[FarmRanger]

To clarify that survey, I believe it was of those in the media, not the general public. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it was around 80% of those in the media consider themselves left of center. Can anyone else remember that survey, I wish I'd saved it.

[15444]

Silverback, your first post was bang on. Point #1 is right on the money. Even though it might buy him confidence from the West and the religious right, going to things like the pro-life rally on Parliment Hill about a month? ago was a big mistake. Ontario, Quebec and especially the majority youth vote do not want a pro-life prime minister. You really can't blame that one on the media. It was a stupid move on Harper's part. If you don't want your party to seem out of touch with a portion of the country you don't do things that are frowned upon in that area of the country. If Harper had attended a pro-life rally in the West, I can just about guarantee you that most people in Ontario would just shrug their shoulders. BUT, by joining that rally in Ottawa, Harper is effectively telling voters that, 'these are my beliefs, and this is the Ontario of the future.'

And about Ontario's 100 seats, don't get too frazzled. Although I think that the West should be given a more equal voice, I think it has to come through Senate reform and a proportional vote rather than a majority vote. Considering Ontario has close to 12 million people (~ 37% of the nation's total), is it wrong to assume that Ontario should have a 100 seats? I think the City of Toronto has something like 5 or 6 Commons seats in it. Add the suburbs and you have a good little portion of your campaign in the bag.