Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Federal Politics Post here for all Federal political discussions


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > Regional Issues > Federal Politics
View Poll Results: Do you think Quebec should get more house of Commons seats?
Yes 5 10.87%
No 39 84.78%
Not Sure 2 4.35%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-05-2011, 11:51 AM   #1
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default Do you think Quebec should get more house of Commons seats?

I wonder if this has something to do with where NDP won a lot of seats?

Quote:
Opposition Leader Jack Layton says he believes Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to find common ground with the NDP and give Quebec more seats in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives proposed in April that Canada's three fastest-growing provinces should get more seats in the House of Commons by 2014, with Ontario gaining 18 seats, British Columbia gaining seven and Alberta five.

Under the proposed legislation, all other provinces, whose populations are not growing as quickly, would be guaranteed to keep the number of seats they have. Quebec currently holds 75 out of 308 seats, 24.4 per cent of seats, despite having 23.2 per cent of Canada's population.

Some Quebec politicians insist the province won't accept anything less than its current number of seats.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...f-commons.html
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You For This Useful Post:
jagators63 (19-09-2011)
Old 28-05-2011, 11:53 AM   #2
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I think Jack is trying to justify his win... I think the seat distribution should be reflective of the population, not party affiliation.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 01:38 PM   #3
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

The professional political trolls are really making an all-out effort to fan anti-Quebec sentiment.

Their politics are as filthy degenerate as they are transparently obvious: without Quebec, the party they work for has a total lock on the country.

Enough already.

Enough of the rotten, perverted, obscene and deviant manipulation.

Stop it.

Whether or not Quebec deserves more seats, STOP IT NOW.
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 01:39 PM   #4
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

^ what and who are you talking to?
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 02:53 PM   #5
debos
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

More seats Jack? I'd say less.
debos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 03:31 PM   #6
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
^ what and who are you talking to?
Maybe angry at the CBC for reporting the issue? They have a poll too, guess they must all be deviant manipulators there, lol.

This issue has been live / discussed for a few years now. It arises largely because Quebec has lower population increase due to fewer immigrants choosing Quebec versus Ontario / BC, and higher birth rates in the West (esp. Alberta).

It's not just at house of commons though, its even more inequitable if you look at Senate seats. Mind you, that hasn't been a problem because the Senate has no real power (although I guess if they became elected, it would change).

Last edited by moahunter; 28-05-2011 at 03:34 PM..
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2011, 07:15 PM   #7
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Quebec doesn't need more seats to house of commons because the population in Quebec haven't grow much for many years. population just grew only 400,000 from 1996 to 2006. so as of right now Quebec have about 7.6 million people (estimate).
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 12:11 AM   #8
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

7.6/33 million people translates to 23% of the population, or 71 or 308 seats. Quebec already has 75 seats.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 06:57 AM   #9
canoilers
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Default

I'd have to say yes they should get more seats in the house. Our system of goverment doesn't protect regions from the majority like the American system does.
canoilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 08:39 AM   #10
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

^every region can't have more than its fair share, that just isn't possible. So which regions do you think are "special" enough that they deserve extra?
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 09:38 AM   #11
Jeff
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
^every region can't have more than its fair share, that just isn't possible.
don't stop there... make the existing representation appropriate in terms of the current heavily disproportionate rural over urban assignments. Wait now... them there rural types - they historically tend to vote what party again? Oh my - waddya say there, hey moahunter?
Jeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 09:43 AM   #12
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

^Its an interesting thought Jeff, although I note that the Conservatives actually did very well in the cities / suburbs this time round. I mean, how many Liberal candidates won in downtown in Edmonton?

It shouldn't really be based on politics, but the way things seem to work right now, it always is.

Maybe the US approach is better, where the upper house is an equal number from each state (2), and the lower house is roughly on population? There still seems to be quite a bit of manipulation of boundaries there though at the local level.

PS. please feel welcome to actually take a position on this issue for once, and vote at the top.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 09:59 AM   #13
Jeff
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
PS. please feel welcome to actually take a position on this issue for once, and vote at the top.
as alex69 pointed out... I'm not interested in fanning your anti-Quebec sentiment!
Jeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2011, 10:53 PM   #14
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Population: Seats: Pop/seat vote power

Canada: 33,223,840
308
107,869
100%

Ontario: 12,891,787
107
120,483
90%

Quebec: 7,744,530
75
103,604
104%

BC: 4,428,356
36
123,009
88%

Alberta: 3,512,368
28
125,441
86%

Manitoba: 1,196,291
14
85,449
126%

Saskatchewan: 1,010,146
14
72,153
150%

Nova Scotia: 935,962
11
85,087
127%

New Brunswick: 751,527
10
75,152
144%

Nfld & Lab: 508,270
7
72,610
149%

PEI: 139,407
4
34,851
310%

Northwest Ter: 42,514
1
42,514
254%

Yukon: 31,530
1
31,530
342%

Nunavut: 31,152
1
31,152
346%

One vote in PEI is worth 3.6 Alberta votes
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2011, 12:33 AM   #15
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

The fact that Quebec is closest to having the national average seats per population and vote power is no accident.

Originally Quebec's seat count was fixed and the other provinces had seats allocated proportionately according to the Quebec benchmark.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpet...q=2&Language=E

I guess 144 years later the original proportion has managed to stay, somehow.

So the question of whether Quebec deserves more or less seats is a meaningless one -- but boy, dirty politics by filthy parties play great.
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2011, 06:01 AM   #16
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

^no its not a meaningless one. If what you write is true, then giving Quebec more seats will result in a need to give Alberta, Ontario, BC and other under represented provinces even more seats to even it out. It becomes then an issue of whether or not you think we are better off with more politicians in the house of common than would be the case if Quebec's were not expanded.

Last edited by moahunter; 30-05-2011 at 06:27 AM..
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-05-2011, 08:32 AM   #17
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Looks like to even things out, Alberta and BC should get 4 more seats each and Ontario, 12 more. We just need to take 2 from PEI, 2 from NF, and several from NS, NB, MB and SK. We could take three from Quebec.

IMHO, we should be lowering the number of seats in Quebec, not raising them.
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2011, 08:21 AM   #18
langis
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Default

Depends on population per seat, which should be evaluated in every province regularly, not just Quebec.
__________________
http://handsomefatman.com — Pondering Entertainment
langis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2011, 03:07 PM   #19
MrOilers
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

I think almost every riding in the country needs to be re-jiggered, and every province West of Quebec needs to add the appropriate number of seats to make representation by population fair nation-wide.
MrOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:19 PM   #20
sundance
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Champions
Default

I really thing Quebec should get fewer seats as should the other provinces, I still would allocate a minimum of 1 MP and Senator for each territory however. We can probably get the job done quite nicely with 201 MPs and 101 Senators.
sundance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 08:50 AM   #21
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

^No.

The bigger the riding the easier it is to gerrymander the results.
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:02 AM   #22
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default Conservatives seek ‘fairness’ in reallocating Commons seats

Where there is smoke, there is fire. The Conservatives are going to push ahead with a realignment. It will be interseting to see how the NDP, and over-represented provinces like Quebec, respond:

Quote:
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives want to move closer to a one citizen, one vote system to “see some fairness” for provinces whose populations are increasing, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan says.

Speaking to reporters in advance of the House getting back to work Thursday, Mr. Loan said some votes are not worth the same as others – and this is undemocratic.

“What has happened is that we’ve have had a situation arise where votes are worth very different amounts across the country,” he said. “This is because the existing formula restrains the growth of seats in areas that are experiencing high growth, particularly in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2044438/
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:32 AM   #23
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

^

I think this is a more informative quote from that piece:

Quote:
“I think fundamentally people understand that democracy should have democratic values behind it,” he said. “I know that there are some who will try to exploit issues like this, create divisions but we live in a democracy.”
this principles based statement is in fact what will make the drive to allocate seats to Ontario, Alberta, and BC. The Layman's understanding of democracy is much more aligned with "one person=one vote" idea and so all other arguments on "fairness vs equality" will always seem like a sneaky way to excuse unfairness. While I understand that sometimes there needs to be.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 06:06 PM   #24
Edmonton PRT
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Just looking at the spread between Saskatewan and Alberta, the seats at a 14/28 ratio are representative of the population in 1976, in 2006 the ratio should be 10/32
__________________
Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.
Edmonton PRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 08:13 PM   #25
richardW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

is there really a legitimate argument against evening out the seats numbers? i would like to hear it
__________________
Bro do you even lift?
richardW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 09:34 PM   #26
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

No one is arguing against evening out the seats.

But some of you guys seem to be missing the point.

As the numbers quoted above show, Quebec is not the problem when it comes to evening out the seats. Quebec comes closer to having its share of the seats than any other province.

You just snipe on Quebec because you have been programmed to.

----

In practice evening out the seats runs against two guarantees: no province can have fewer seats than it has senators, and no province can have more than one-twentieth of its seats removed. The senate allocations are written into the British North America Act or whatever they call it now, so that it would take a constitutional amendment to change.

Therefore the only way to try to keep things even is to add seats very carefully. The problem is, of course, that that way Parliament just grows and grows and grows. A 201 seat house of commons is a political impossibility.

Last edited by alex69; 02-06-2011 at 09:39 PM..
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:02 PM   #27
richardW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

^I know you don't mean me directly but lets make it clear that i have nothing against Quebec. Nowhere in my post is written anything negative about Quebec. you shouldn't use such broad strokes to describe the few people who you really are referring too.

clearly there is something wrong with this system. the solution? i have no clue.
__________________
Bro do you even lift?
richardW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:26 PM   #28
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

^I didn't mean you. But it's funny how in this thread so many people have said, take seats away from Quebec -- including the person who posted the numbers province by province.

It all comes, I think, from the way the question was put.

I too have no idea how to "fix" anything. But actually I would say there is no problem that needs fixing.

It's a little hard to complain, for example, that Alberta hasn't got its proper share of influence now. The PM represents Alberta, all the seats except one are held by the governing party, approval rating of the government during the election was 67%.

Likewise, during those periods that another party held power and Alberta had largely elected the opposition, I remember the deputy PM being from Edmonton (actually she was my MP in those days).

But so much of this is dirty politics and whipping people up.
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 04:32 AM   #29
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

^ please consider re-reading the posts.

Post #1 (moahunter): Should Quebec get more seats?
Post #2 (mine): I think the seat distribution should be reflective of the population, not party affiliation.
Post #3 (you): The professional political trolls are really making an all-out effort to fan anti-Quebec sentiment.

Even E-PRT, whom you singled out when you said "including the person who posted the numbers province by province", is actually more balanced than you try to make it seem:

Quote:
Looks like to even things out, Alberta and BC should get 4 more seats each and Ontario, 12 more. We just need to take 2 from PEI, 2 from NF, and several from NS, NB, MB and SK. We could take three from Quebec.

IMHO, we should be lowering the number of seats in Quebec, not raising them.
He looked beyond the narrow question of quebec getting extra seats, and considered the whole country with the aim to distribute seats evenly by population. The comment about taking away seats has to do with his desire to keep the total number of seats the same at 308 and not going up to 338. In this E-PRT's post, he is looking at things mathematically. Whether simple mathematics of average is appropriate here is a different story.

Considering neither of the first two posts making any references to removing seats from quebec (although, negative reply to the initial question is equivalent to a reduced influence for Quebec), and that people on here are trying to understand the problem with seat distribution in general much more than having a hate on for quebec, sniping for and against out of habit is a somewhat misplaced label. Perhaps you need to relax a bit and say what you want to say without that mean streak.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.

Last edited by grish; 03-06-2011 at 04:34 AM..
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 04:52 AM   #30
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I've been thinking about the problem of even representation...

As I have said earlier, the comment about the "fundamnetal democratic values" is going to shape the debate towards 1 person=1 vote no matter the place of residence. Any suggestions otherwise will always feel fake or disingenious to many people.

Nevertheless, I am going to suggest a different point of view. I think each vote should be equal in terms of responsibility, and not necessarily in terms of population. To make the point, I will skip Quebec and head North where 1 person represents enormous territory. Sure there are ministers in charge of northern files, but in terms of representation on behalf of the land and the people, 1 voice in the house seems inadequate. There is much nature and wildlife ot preserve and manage. There is vast "riches" that could potentially be mined and a wrong decision with inadequate representation and voice for the people and for the land could lead to some really drastic consequences. Compare that one northern seat to one seat in, say, Toronto Eglinton-Lawrence or Edmonton Center–the level of responsibility is very, very different.

The solution should be a combination of population voice and land voice in some way recognizing the importance of the land, nature, and resources for the country as a whole.

One thing that would be nice is to remove provincial boundaries for federal representation when deciding on electoral boundaries for MP's. This might make seat distribution more reasonable in terms of population and representation while improving communication between provinces through MP's whose ridings stradle the provincial borders. This, however, is likely not possible as it may be an issue that requires opening up the constitution.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 06:27 AM   #31
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
Compare that one northern seat to one seat in, say, Toronto Eglinton-Lawrence or Edmonton Center–the level of responsibility is very, very different.
By that logic, somebody who lives in Windermere with a large back yard, should get more votes than somebody who lives in a condo downtown, because they are more responsible for more of Canada's riches?

I think there is a need for some Provincial balancing, but not much more than a minimun number of seats per province / territory.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 06:38 AM   #32
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

no, that is not quite the same logic. I am talking about public property, not private. The "riches" under the large back yard are not the property of the home owner as per property laws of canada. Any minerals etc remain the domain of the crown. So, large back yard doesn't really require greater representation.

Areas such as farming lands, national parks, etc on the other hand are in much closer contact with watersheds, minerals, food production. In my opinion, that relationship justifies bigger representation.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 06:50 AM   #33
alex69
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default

I still don't think there is a problem. Not one that can be fixed, anyway, in the realm of the possible -- which means there IS no problem, it's just the way things are.
alex69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:25 AM   #34
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

actually, as soon as someone identifies it as a problem, it is a problem in that it is a problem for someone. If you disagree with that problem, you have a problem with the problem. So, like it or not, we now have the problem of MP distribution with multiple solutions that include the status quo. now that the whole things is perturbed, we need to voice our views on the matter to ensure any changes done will reflect the wishes of the people.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:51 AM   #35
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
Areas such as farming lands, national parks, etc on the other hand are in much closer contact with watersheds, minerals, food production. In my opinion, that relationship justifies bigger representation.
I don't really agree with the idea that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", when it comes to voting. Sure, farmers make food, but how does that make their votes more valuable than a nurse who saves people's lives in a hospital in downtown Edmonton? We will never get perfect balance if we want FPP with its advantages (strong goverments/seat accountability), nor is that needed, but I think we can strive for it to not be highly unfair.

The issue simply arises because Canada's population has remained stagnant in some areas (e.g. Maritimes / Altantic / Quebec), and has grown more rapidly in others. There are two potential solutions such that those Provinces aren't unfairly over represented forever based on that historical anomaly:

1. Increase the voting power of the growing Provinces but not the old Provinces, or
2. Rebalance by reducing the voting power of the old Provinces.

Like it or not, politicians will always prefer 1. because it creates more jobs / opportunities for politicians, and is a lot less controversial.

Last edited by moahunter; 03-06-2011 at 07:54 AM..
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 08:28 AM   #36
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

moahunter, try to understand what is actually written down, not what *you* read...

I am not saying a farmer has more value than a nurse. I am saying that the land that the farmer occupies has value from it's connections to our watersheds, mineral rights, wildlife and so on. Same goes for the national parks, mountain peaks, lakes, and everything in between. If a piece of land is empty, who is to speak on it's behalf in order to protect what is collectively ours? From the recognition that we need advocates and representation for our lands comes the need to find a way to elect these individuals. If it is through a vote, then the people living nearby would get the privilege and the responsibility to elect more MPs than, say, a person living in downtown TO, CA, ED, etc..
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 09:04 AM   #37
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

^I don't think that's right. I don't think people who live in isolated locations inheriently deserve more federal vote power than people who choose to live in dense ones (and I write that in the knowledge that peope in rural/isolated areas do vote more conservative). We have the distribution of provinces and territories to account for regional governance and representations.

Last edited by moahunter; 03-06-2011 at 09:06 AM..
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 10:37 AM   #38
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I have been trying to focus away from individual people "deserving" more vote power and onto our land having it's fair representation. Although, I see why you would assume that a person living in the middle of nowhere would gain a stronger voice proportionally as compared to a person living in a densly populated area. In all reality, that person's voice would still be drowned out by the collective voices of the GTA, for example.

I don't know what form of voting that would give the vast forests, water, wildlife, and minerals appropriate representation. Perhaps the north is a tough point to make when only the human's are allowed to vote, although I imagined it was an easier metaphor for "fair≠equal"... I will try to think of a better example, although I don't hold much hope in being able to break through the basic "one man=one vote" understanding of democracy. That is why that quote that I had selected is so powerful. Whoever is a writer and a strategist for the conservatives is sold gold. Appealing for the most basic and common or "fundamental" understanding (or misunderstanding) is pure genius.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 11:52 AM   #39
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
actually, as soon as someone identifies it as a problem, it is a problem in that it is a problem for someone. If you disagree with that problem, you have a problem with the problem...
???????????? that's certainly a bit of a stretch. actually, that's a lot of a stretch.

someone's perception of a situation or circumstance as being a problem does not necessarily make that situation or circumstance a problem. for that to be the case you have to assume everyone's perception of everything is correct. if it is not then there is an error in perception which is not the same thing.

that error may be either a problem or problematic but the "it" originally identified is not necessarily a problem simply because someone has identified - or more accurately labeled - it as a problem.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 11:55 AM   #40
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

^ you are incorrect.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 05:32 PM   #41
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
^ you are incorrect.
really? per merriam webster:

Main Entry: prob·lem
Function: noun
1 : something to be worked out or solved <a problem in arithmetic>
2 a : something that is hard to understand, deal with, or correct <social problems> <have a problem with the car> b : something that causes one trouble or irritation <of course the mosquitoes are a problem> c : difficulty in understanding or accepting <I have a problem with your attitude>

your premise treats 2a, 2b and 2c all as equivalent and they are not. as i stated, 2c does not necessarily equate to 2a.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 06:13 PM   #42
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

"does not neessarilly mean". That's a hedge. You don't even fully belie e what you are writing. As I have said, your understanding of a problem is incorrect.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2011, 07:07 PM   #43
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grish View Post
"does not neessarilly mean". That's a hedge. You don't even fully belie e what you are writing. As I have said, your understanding of a problem is incorrect.
it's not a hedge at all. it's a recognition that when it comes to perceptions there are no absolutes and all things are not equivalent all of the time.

some things are problems and are perceived to be problems.

some things are perceived to be problems that are not.

and some things are not really problems at all but simply a pain.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 09:52 AM   #44
sundance
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Champions
Default

The "problem" is that Quebec and I think PEI (perhaps the maritimes) have the number of seats mentioned in the constitution, so unless we do a constitutional change (which SHOULD be done) we have to work within the limits of it.

I can't see why if USA can function just nicely with 435 voting congressmen why we need anywhere close to that for the house of commons. Yes Canada is big we should be able to run the country just fine with 200 or less MPs. If you consider USA has 10x the population we should be able to manage with just 44 MPs.
sundance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 10:42 AM   #45
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

the point on the size of the house is taken, although, I would not consider the US as a model to follow due to their complicated voting system and vote allocation.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 10:55 AM   #46
sundance
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: City of Champions
Default

Grish I would concur on the electoral college system in the USA to me is anachronistic in this era, perhaps it was needed in the horse an buggy era or the time of the steam engine and telegraph. You'd think they'd do away with it especially when one hopefully should be able to vote online at home securely and confidentially. Now I think we should have the right to vote for the PM independently of the MP, as well as vote for senators.

I do like the split system of voting US senators, where a part are voted in each election, if we have House and Senate elections at the exact same time you end up just duplicating the results and the Senate wouldn't serve well as a "house of sober second thought"
sundance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2011, 10:10 PM   #47
Glenco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default NEIL REYNOLDS The never-ending rep-by-pop conflict

The old conflict will soon assert itself once again, this time perhaps more definitively than ever. Based on the 2011 census, the Harper government proposes to add 30 seats to the Commons, bringing the total to 338: 18 more for Ontario, five more for Alberta, seven more for British Columbia. This would reduce the proportion of Quebec seats from 25 per cent to 22 per cent. The questions now change a bit: When does Quebec confront and concede its existential decline in population and power? And without a 19th-century imperialist around, can the union survive democracy?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2169075/
Interesting times we live in. This will certainly call Quebec's bluff.
__________________
"Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you." -- Groucho Marx
Glenco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2011, 01:01 PM   #48
Drumbones
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Living near Wetaskiwin
Default

I think Quebec should have zero and get zero dollars from the haves and maybe leave Canada entirely. imo
Drumbones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2011, 10:41 AM   #49
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default Ottawa bestows more seats on Ontario, B.C., Alberta – and Quebec

Three more for Quebec, I think Alberta did quite well:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2215722/

Quote:
Ontario will get 15 new seats, British Columbia and Alberta six each and Quebec three in the latest and probably final attempt by the Harper government to rejig the House of Commons in favour of the fast-growing provinces.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2011, 10:54 AM   #50
richardW
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

did we really need more seats total? seems like added government bloat to me. redistributing the current # of seats would have worked just as well (although certain MP's would be in arms about it)

seriously 308 seats for a population of barely 35 mill is a bit nuts. moving up to 338.... are there even enough chairs for that many people...
__________________
Bro do you even lift?
richardW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2011, 11:55 AM   #51
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

^what do you think the NDP will say later today? Tough spot for them with all their Quebec ridings, but needing more support in English Speaking Canada. I'm guessing something like what the Liberals are saying. They have criticised the lack of consultation or similar, but haven't really stated what would do different (just dither more I'm guessing).
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2011, 08:01 PM   #52
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Quebec should not get any new seats added to the house of commons because their population is still same as is for 7 million people for more than 20 yrs now.
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.