CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Another year, another federal election. Americans, please note the high-tech voting apparatus, which is composed of a pencil and a piece of paper.

You're in Canada, right?

Has to be.I can't remember any elections in the States.Besides we're still getting over the big win in Seattle!

mitsuki lover wrote:Has to be.I can't remember any elections in the States.Besides we're still getting over the big win in Seattle!

I was pretty sure it would be Seattle and Pittsburgh. They are both very good teams.

Merovingian wrote:You're in Canada, right?

Yup, the government fell earlier in December, so now we've got to vote for a new one.

I hear it's looking pretty good for the conservatives, but will still be a minority gov.

Technomancer wrote:Americans, please note the high-tech voting apparatus, which is composed of a pencil and a piece of paper.

No hanging chads there, at least.

I hear that the conservatives won so far, but... what are Canadian Conservatives like? o.O

In terms of their party platform, the Canadian Conservative party is considerably more moderate than your Republicans both economically and socially. I don't think I can really call them Tories though anymore given some of their positions. However, the new parliament is going to be something of a dog's breakfast since while the conservatives have a minority, they don't have an obvious partner for a coalition (the Bloc could put them over the top, but they have cooties), and the Liberals still control the senate. So the parliament will have to survive more or less on a day to day basis, which probably means that there will be another election in about two years. It does mean though, that hopefully the Conservative proposals that I like will get through, and the ones I don't won't.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/parties.html

The Conservatives are usually similar to Republicans. The Liberals are essentially what we call Democrats. In the U.K., they would be the "Conservatives" and "Labour". Really, the three countries would have virtually the same party structure, if it weren't for our (the U.S.) system favoring a permanent two-party structure.
Any degrees of moderate or extreme are a reflection of how our enforced two-party system blots out middle voices, hence handing more power to the ends of the spectrum. You have rare "middle voices" that manage to carve niches for themselves (see John McCain) but mostly the middle is kept out of the picture. By leaving more room for minority parties to operate, Canada and the U.K. end up with major parties that have to be more concerned about the middle, and hence party leaderships that are more moderate.

Just a gentle note that this is probably about as far into politics as this thread can reasonably go.

EricTheFred wrote:The Conservatives are usually similar to Republicans. The Liberals are essentially what we call Democrats. In the U.K., they would be the "Conservatives" and "Labour".

I would actually disagree with that assesment. There are in fact a number of commentators who put the Conservatives only a little to the "right" of the Democrats, and thus the Liberals sit further to the left, and the Bloc and NDP even further. Also historically, English/Canadian conservativism also has it roots in Toryism, whereas American conservativism is more rooted in 18th century liberalism. This has had a significant impact on the policies of past conservative governments. It's only fairly recently that British and Canadian conservativism morphed into a more American style.

Really, the three countries would have virtually the same party structure, if it weren't for our (the U.S.) system favoring a permanent two-party structure.

In the sense that there would be two main parties, I suppose so. Your congressional structure essentially splits the exectutive and legislative into two separate entities, which I have always found odd. However, I do believe that minority parties do have a chance in your system, it's just that they so far have not taken the proper route to making themselves credible alternatives. Instead of focussing on an all or nothing bid for the presidency, they would be better served running for congressional or sentorial seats. They could probably do better in local areas of strength and establish some credibility elsewhere if they manage to get elected.

By leaving more room for minority parties to operate, Canada and the U.K. end up with major parties that have to be more concerned about the middle, and hence party leaderships that are more moderate

Probably true, although during the 20th century, it's been the Liberals who have been able to best hold onto the centre. Taken as a whole, they've governed just a little under three-quarters of the last century, interrupted only by compartively short periods of Conservative rule.

Just a gentle note that this is probably about as far into politics as this thread can reasonably go.

Understood, I'll keep my own party preferences out of it.

Actually, third parties have played a big part in our political system (in an odd sort of fashion). The Republicans and Democrats of today both came from third parties that ended up gaining major party status, but oddly enough every time a new party rises in our system an older party is descending and dissapears entirely. Heard of the Whigs (in the US), the Federalists, or the Democratic-Republicans (While this party has a tenuous connection to the current Democratic party, it dissolved into factions in the 1820's and its politics have morphed significantly over the years)? All these parties were eclipsed by another party in turn: The Federalists dissolved while the Whigs gained power, and they dissolved while the Republicans gained power. The Democratic-Republicans dissolved and one of their faction parties gained power as the current Democratic party. Add in such figures as Eugene V. Debs (5 time socialist candidate for president, several of his campaigns run from jail) and William Jennings Bryan (nominated by the Democrats but loved and nominated by the Populist party as well), and you actually have a system that tends to be dominated by two parties, but has seen major third party influence before, and will likely see such again.

I realize that other parties have come and gone throughout American history, but the relevant question is how did they acquire a base? Several parties have also come and gone throughout Canadian poltical history as well (e.g. Progressive, Social Credit, etc) , but have largely followed the sort of approach that I've suggested (not that they really have a choice given our system).

Technomancer wrote:I realize that other parties have come and gone throughout American history, but the relevant question is how did they acquire a base? Several parties have also come and gone throughout Canadian poltical history as well (e.g. Progressive, Social Credit, etc) , but have largely followed the sort of approach that I've suggested (not that they really have a choice given our system).

A lot of influential US third parties form around strong political personalities. If those personalities are long-lived/successful, they can turn into long lasting parties. Debs is an example of where that didn't quite work out. He ran a VERY strong campaign, even after being imprisoned by Wilson, but after his retirement from politics his party basically collapsed.

The green party is can be seen as undergoing a microcosm of this process after choosing not to run Nader as their 2004 candidate, opting for Cobb instead. Their % fell significantly.

Lol

Most of the current third parties in the U.S.(with exceptions such as the Socialist Party)either were founded by disgruntled Republicans(Libertarian and Constitution
parties)or equally disgruntled Democrats(Green Party).Mostly though they seem to enjoy taking potshots at the Big Two(and it's not hard to see why these days).

Mmm. It is interesting to look at the political process in the US and other countries. My impression (largly from what I have seen of British and German politics) is that in countries with a parlementary body (Canada, Britain, etc.) there tend to be stronger third parties than in the US because these third parties can help form governmental coalitions and push for their ideas. In the US, our political parties tend to try and overthrow other political parties because (I think) the president comes from only one party (so only one party can win this election) and congress has no use for factions, third party congressmen/congresswomen can present bills and vote, but they need the approval of congresspeople in other parties to pass the law, and being part of a large party helps advance your personal agenda.

I see most political change coming from internal dissent within political parties, as being a major voting block for a party/candidate will heavily influence their decisions in office. Third parties tend to fracture the voting base for one party or another, and if they are very successful and know what's good for them they will try to convert the party with views closer to theirs into voting for their presidential candidate rather than having a three-way presidential race with the party more opposed to your ideas having a unified front. Thus third parties tend to become one of the two major parties if successful, and remain fringe if they're not. This makes it look like third parties havn't had a major impact on the US system, but I think it would be more correct to say that parties with similar views tend to merge (similarly to coalitions in European and Canadian governments) to have more political power as a whole.

To use an example from German politics, if Germany were the US the FDP and the CDU (The FDP being a centerist business-oriented party, the CDU being the major conservative party in Germany) would likely create a center-right party and the SDP and Green Party (SDP being the Socialist Democratic party, the major liberal party in Germany) would likely combine into a center-left party. Instead, these parties simply tend to form coalition governments in the above fashion to advance their politics with a friendlier political party.

The one good thing about American politics is the fact that the date for our elections are always set.I would hate to live in a country where the elections were depended on the popularity of the party in power.

Technomancer wrote:I realize that other parties have come and gone throughout American history, but the relevant question is how did they acquire a base? Several parties have also come and gone throughout Canadian poltical history as well (e.g. Progressive, Social Credit, etc) , but have largely followed the sort of approach that I've suggested (not that they really have a choice given our system).

If that's not a rhetorical question, American parties from to address a need. As that need dies out, so does the party. For example the Whig Party and disliking Andrew Jackson and the xenophobic Know-Nothings Party.

mitsuki lover wrote:The one good thing about American politics is the fact that the date for our elections are always set.I would hate to live in a country where the elections were depended on the popularity of the party in power.

But it also creates "lame ducks". With our own system, elections are mandated every five years by the constitution, but the governor general can dissolve parliament earlier than that if the situation warrants it. This means that if the prime minister wants an election before his five years are up, he can usually have one*. Parliament may also be dissolved if the government loses a confidence vote (e.g. a budget bill or a non-confidence motion). This latter case only really happens though in situations where there is a minority government.

*The governor general may refuse to dissolve parliament, although that's onlt ever happened once, during the so-called King-Byng-wing-ding in 1925. Theoretically, the g-g may also dissolve parliament on their own initiative but would be highly, highly unlikely.

If that's not a rhetorical question, American parties from to address a need. As that need dies out, so does the party. For example the Whig Party and disliking Andrew Jackson and the xenophobic Know-Nothings Party.

It was really more a question about organizing. It seems to me that the third parties that have cropped up lately in the US have been largely ineffectual because they've focused on all-or-nothing bids for the presidency. This means that they're really only ever in the public eye once every four years. Even if you've got a few party faithful who'll follow it in the interim, you need to be able to be able to build some kind of recognition among the public at large during that time if you're going to convince them that you're really able to govern.

I think Canadian politics would be easier for Americans to understand if we just invaded Canada and made it part of the U.S.

While our system creates lame ducks, it also adds a certain stability to the political process as we know exactly how long people will stay in power before the next election, and we can plan for the elections and political stuff ahead of time rather than dealing with it on an irregular basis. In addition, I think the cyclic nature of American third party visibility is more because these parties don't appeal to many of our citizens than a lack of organization. I know the US Green Party is highly organized and connected with a number of political campaigns (I have seen several in my city), but the campaigns don't seem to appeal to many of our citizens. Thus, the organization is only highly visible when people here are concerned about all things political (right before the Presidential election) and all sorts of groups get their time in the spotlight. I think we have such weak third parties right now simply because most Americans, for one reason or another, either like, or will put up with, the current two major political parties, and see no reason to change. One they do want a change, I suspect it will come about quickly with a new party forming to accomidate this change in thinking, or an old party reforming itself. We saw this with the Republican party in the 19th century, it went from its foundation to having a president in the White House in six years. I suspect that most successful third parties in the US in the future will have more of a quick rise in response to public feelings than a slow rise due to public recognition.

mitsuki lover wrote:I think Canadian politics would be easier for Americans to understand if we just invaded Canada and made it part of the U.S.

You've tried several times in the past, and it didn't work out so well. ]
While our system creates lame ducks, it also adds a certain stability to the political process as we know exactly how long people will stay in power before the next election, and we can plan for the elections and political stuff ahead of time rather than dealing with it on an irregular basis.[/quote]

True, but these situations are fairly rare in Canadian poiltics as well. Prior to Martin's last minority government, we haven't had one since Joe Clark back in 1979. There were a few others as well. The majority governments we've generally had have been pretty stable though (remember the Liberals had been in power for 13 years prior to losing the election). The good thing about minorities however is that they force the government to actually listen to and deal with the other parties, which ensures that there is broader popular participation.

mitsuki lover wrote:I think Canadian politics would be easier for Americans to understand if we just invaded Canada and made it part of the U.S.

Battle of Saratoga, my man, battle of Saratoga. Canada and the US have always had pretty different thought patterns when it comes to civic matters and the relationship between government and the governed.
Most Americans in the late 1700's thought of Canada as the 14th colony and assumed it would fight for independence with the other thirteen. When Canada did not go with the flow, Americans pulled the whole 'invading army' thing. And for some decades afterwards Canadians were worried that their pugnacious little neighbor to the south might have Canada on their list of places to get, which was true because the last time the US tried to conquer Canada was 1813, and it resulted in them burning down the White House. In fact, the Fenians tried to conquer Canada in the 1860's, but they didn't have the backing of the US government.
Considering the historical differences between the US and Canada, political, sociological, and otherwise, it is not at all surprising that the differences in the structure and workings of the respective governments appear odd to the citizens of the other country.

Saratoga's in New York state.
I hope that doesn't prove what kind of educational system Canada has,because you really need to bone up on your history and geography.
FYI:America won the Battle of Saratoga.
I think you're confused with the expedition that was co-led by Benedict Arnold to try to seige Montreal.

Doubleshadow wrote:Battle of Saratoga, my man, battle of Saratoga. Canada and the US have always had pretty different thought patterns when it comes to civic matters and the relationship between government and the governed.
Most Americans in the late 1700's thought of Canada as the 14th colony and assumed it would fight for independence with the other thirteen. When Canada did not go with the flow, Americans pulled the whole 'invading army' thing.

It was a bit more than that actually. The Quebecois and Acadians weren't really interested in joining the US, and neither was the new colony of Nova Scotia. English Canada however did not really exist at this time, and only came into being as a result of the United Empire Loyalists, who had been forced to flee their homes during the war (which in many ways was as much a civil war as a revolution). The Loyalists went on to found the colonies of New Brunswick and Upper Canada. There's a pretty good monument to them in the downtown core, although sadly the base was lost (quarried from the symbolic location of Queenston)

And for some decades afterwards Canadians were worried that their pugnacious little neighbor to the south might have Canada on their list of places to get, which was true because the last time the US tried to conquer Canada was 1813, and it resulted in them burning down the White House.

More or less true, the actual war lasted from 1812-1814. Incidentally, one of the more important battles (the battle of Stoney Creek) was actually fought just across town from where I live. If it wasn't for Prevost's dithering, and perhaps the death of General Brock, the Canadian/British victory in the war would likely have been much more decisive.

In fact, the Fenians tried to conquer Canada in the 1860's, but they didn't have the backing of the US government.

True. Although President Andrew Johnson did give them some reason to believe that they had his support. He had told them that he was willing to recognize "accomplished facts." While the Fenians probably didn't pose a long term threat, they were able to assemble a force of close to 5,000 men (mostly Civil War veterans), and bring about 1,000 of them across the river to fight at Ridgeway in 1866. They also attacked Eccles Hill and Trout River in 1870, but in much smaller numbers.

There were also previous attacks though in 1838 by the so-called "Patriot Hunters" who took the recent rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada as a signal to "liberate" us. These attacks were fought off at the battles of Pelee Island, Windmill Point and Windsor. The hunters also engaged in sporadic banditry and terrorism throughout 1838-1840.

Considering the historical differences between the US and Canada, political, sociological, and otherwise, it is not at all surprising that the differences in the structure and workings of the respective governments appear odd to the citizens of the other country.

Very true. Sorry for the history lesson BTW, but I couldn't resist seeing as how I live fairly close to where a lot of this history actually happened. Incidentally, if you're interested in this sort of thing you might try reading James Laxer's "The Border" which goes into some of the historical forces that have affected how our individual poltical cultures have developed.

I think I'm pretty happy living in american, though I live at least a half hour away from the canadian bridge in Dertoit, and by the sound of it....good luck.

mitsuki lover wrote:Saratoga's in New York state.
I hope that doesn't prove what kind of educational system Canada has,because you really need to bone up on your history and geography.
FYI:America won the Battle of Saratoga.
I think you're confused with the expedition that was co-led by Benedict Arnold to try to seige Montreal.

Your right, I misremebered the details, bad example.
FYI: I am an American and have never been outside the US. Although my closest friends mother is from Ontario and she is there visiting family all the time. Also, apparently a glitch in the computer system of a toll road in Canada (Queen Victoria something-or-other I think) about three years ago made the Canadian government think our horse trailer, which had not moved from the side of barn in six years, had been cruisng around up there and we recieved a bill for it.
Also, considering how poor we are around here, and most of the money goes into either football teams or trying to decide how to get the asbestos and coal dust of the buildings, and most of the students do well just to not move their lips when they read silently, I'd say that does prove what kind of an educational system we have back home. After substitute teaching, my Mom said she wonders how my brother and I managed learned anything in that environment.

Technomancer wrote:It was a bit more than that actually. The Quebecois and Acadians weren't really interested in joining the US, and neither was the new colony of Nova Scotia. English Canada however did not really exist at this time, and only came into being as a result of the United Empire Loyalists, who had been forced to flee their homes during the war (which in many ways was as much a civil war as a revolution). The Loyalists went on to found the colonies of New Brunswick and Upper Canada. There's a pretty good monument to them in the downtown core, although sadly the base was lost (quarried from the symbolic location of Queenston).

Cool. My high school needs to invest in better history books.

Technomancer wrote:More or less true, the actual war lasted from 1812-1814. Incidentally, one of the more important battles (the battle of Stoney Creek) was actually fought just across town from where I live. If it wasn't for Prevost's dithering, and perhaps the death of General Brock, the Canadian/British victory in the war would likely have been much more decisive.

Also, very cool. We have a Revolutionary War battle monument in my home town, it is a state park. A lot of the battlefield has part of my town on it now.

Technomancer wrote:True. Although President Andrew Johnson did give them some reason to believe that they had his support. He had told them that he was willing to recognize "accomplished facts." While the Fenians probably didn't pose a long term threat, they were able to assemble a force of close to 5,000 men (mostly Civil War veterans), and bring about 1,000 of them across the river to fight at Ridgeway in 1866. They also attacked Eccles Hill and Trout River in 1870, but in much smaller numbers.

Hmm. Did not know all of that, but I was trying to keeping it simple.

Technomancer wrote:There were also previous attacks though in 1838 by the so-called "Patriot Hunters" who took the recent rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada as a signal to "liberate" us. These attacks were fought off at the battles of Pelee Island, Windmill Point and Windsor. The hunters also engaged in sporadic banditry and terrorism throughout 1838-1840.

I have never heard that. I'll have to ask my friend about it next time I'm home.

Technomancer wrote:Very true. Sorry for the history lesson BTW, but I couldn't resist seeing as how I live fairly close to where a lot of this history actually happened. Incidentally, if you're interested in this sort of thing you might try reading James Laxer's "The Border" which goes into some of the historical forces that have affected how our individual poltical cultures have developed.

I love information, lay it on me! And I'll see what I can find about that book.

Hmm. Did not know all of that, but I was trying to keeping it simple.

No worries, the Fenian raids tend to be pretty obscure.

I have never heard that. I'll have to ask my friend about it next time I'm home.

It's another fairly obscure topic as well. Unfortunately, it's not helped by many of our history textbooks that tend to lump the Hunters in as merely another part of the rebellions.

I love information, lay it on me! And I'll see what I can find about that book.

Cool, in that case you might also be interested in some of Donald E. Graves books as well. He's written stuff covering much of the war of 1812, as well as the business with the Patriot Hunters.