Canid Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 I have a bad habit of being at my most active when I should be going to bed. In the great, anthem-writing tradition of Francis Scott Key (*cough* Hooray for direct descendants. Honour Me, ALL OF YOU! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!) and in celebration of this utterly frivolous Federal Election, I issue to you a challenge. I will of course be taking part, but all in good time. I challenge you to re-write our (that is to say Canada's) National Anthem. You may of course re-write your own as well, but Canada, I think, really needs a better one. Ours is sucky* (I'm sorry)... it lacks substance, imagery for one (apart from someone standing there looking vaguely patriotic), metaphors, dare I say entertaining poetic devices? I present you with our current anthem: O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. There, now make a new one. *I hereby present a definition for the word "sucky" as used above: devoid of anything but emotion-related content; sappy/soppy; unwilling to cause anyone offence. Now, for the second part of this thread, and the predominant reason I made it, political discussion. I greatly ENCOURAGE this, independent of anthem entries. There was a thread opened up for the 2004 election that I thought yielded some most interesting discussion. The vote for this one is today, and as no-one has started a thread yet, I can't resist it. Just to get us started, I know it surprised a number of you in #thepen chatroom the other day to discover that a minority government in Canada can fall simply by them not being able to pass a bill... if a motion of "non-confidence" is attached to what the Members of Parliament are voting for, a new Federal election is called as a result of a negative outcome. The average minority government in Canada lasts only 18 months (almost exactly the length of this one). "Non-confidence" is there (I believe) as a safe-guard against government grinding to a standstill and not being able to pass anything (aka get anything done) but considering the expense of elections, this is an obviously flawed system. Amidst the excitement of a new election and a chance for the Green Party (whom I would like to see recognized for their merits) to actually elect an MP (it could happen!!! ...albeit not where I live) there has been that cold hard fact sitting there, staring at us, that absolutely nothing has changed since the last time, and millions upon millions of dollars are being spent because the balance of power wants a little more.
Katzaniel Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Nothing has changed? Oh, but dear Canid. Haven't you seen the polls? Much as I'd love to disbelieve them, they clearly show that, unless thousands of undecideds freak out at the prospect and go vote, we're heading for a Conservative government. Possibly a majority. I'm not even sure that the system is flawed; I agree that elections cost us tonnes of money, but if a party can't get anything done, doesn't that cost us more (if not financially)? *sigh* I actually saw Stephen Harper in a one-to-one interview, and he stood up well. The party seems to have thought things through this time, has a complete platform with some very good ideas, and seems in earnest about many of their promises. (Well, they seem in earnest about them all, but I'm reading between the lines here). I'm just absolutely flabbergasted and terrified that he wants to, and thinks he legally can, take us backwards on the gay marriage issue. If it weren't for that ... well, I wouldn't be happy about this, but I wouldn't be so frightened. PS. I like our anthem but perhaps if I'm feeling creative or inspired I'll join in on the rewriting.
Canid Posted January 23, 2006 Author Report Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) If non-confidence were the only way to resolve the situation, you'd be right; but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Just like regional voting (I don't actually know the official name) is not the only electoral system (I for one think proportional representation would be nice). Non-confidence, in essence means that the government isn't happy with the way we voted and wants us to try again since they can't get along with eachother in their current numbers. We are a multi-party system, set up to take an infinate number of parties - if we wanted to, we could have a different one for each riding. Yet we have combined this with a pollicy practical only if a minority happens the minority of times. We may have fifteen parties volleying for power on the grand scale one day, and we need to have a system that will work if they all get an even chunk of parliament. Edited January 23, 2006 by Canid
Tyrion Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Proportional representation would certainly help your Green Party, Canid. I'm actually all for it, and most people I know are... They should really make that happen in the near future. Have you heard the voting rate argument? In countries with proportional representation (the example of Australia was mentionned), the voting rate is close to 95%, as opposed to our system, which has one around 55%. I go vote even though my vote changes nothing, I would love for it to make a difference. I'd never be one to vote for Liberals, but what's with people turning to the Conservatives out of spite? As far as I'm concerned, they're even worse. Sure, it'll show the Liberals that they can't be careless anymore, but Conservatives... I guess I can live with them having a minority government, because they'd be opposed by everyone else on issues like gay marriage, but a majority government would certainly set us back. And how about these lyrics, they're much better than the English ones (comes with my own translation). Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, (O Canada, land of our ancestors,) Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! (Your (fore)head is crowned by glorious florets.) Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, (Because your arm can carry the sword,) Il sait porter la croix; (He can carry the cross;) Ton histoire est une épopée (Your history is an epic poem) Des plus brillants exploits. (Of the most brilliant feats.) Et ta valeur de foi trempée (And your valor of forged faith) Protégera nos foyers et nos droits; (Will protect our homes and our rights.) Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. Okay... so a few parts of this one need revising also... but it's already much better in regards to poetic devices, wouldn't you say? I'll still try to rewrite the English one... Edited January 23, 2006 by Tyrion
Katzaniel Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) We may have fifteen parties volleying for power on the grand scale one dayI doubt it... but point conceded anyway. The thing is (as yourself, a Green-Party supporter, is well aware), in order to get a party recognized as whatever-exactly-it's-recognized-as (do you know the name? But basically what I mean is that it gets media coverage and, I believe, some sort of funding) it needs to first get a certain number of seats. This is good, in that it keeps spontaneous and ill-defined parties from cluttering up the political debates, especially when they have seats in only a few ridings. But it also means that parties like the Green Party, which I would not call spontaneous or ill-defined, get less recognition than the Bloc Quebecois, for whom people in say, Saskatchewan don't even have the option to vote. As a voter in Saskatchewan, I would want to see debates that leave out Gilles Duceppe (although I like the man and he spices up the debates) and put in a Green Party candidate. Um, anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't see 15 parties happening any time before they change those rules. PS. I am not saying that the Bloc shouldn't have federal status... that's a whole other can of worms that I'm really not sure anymore how I feel about. Edited January 23, 2006 by Katzaniel
Tyrion Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 *opens the can slightly* People have a tendency to misinterpret the Bloc Quebecois as a seperatist party, but that isn't true. It's a federal party, it *can't* be seperatist. Since it can't be a majority party (it managed to be the official opposition once, because of split votes in the rest of Canada), its purpose is not to run the country the way Quebec wants it run, but to simply defend issues that are important to us (as a French-speaking society). Of course sometimes our interests coincide with that of other nation-wide parties, but not always. As Gilles Duceppe said in an interview, they are not aiming to go against a party in particular, they view each idea for what it is, sometimes that means agreeing with Liberals, other times with Conservatives etc. I agree that it's pretty weird for you guys to get debates with Gille Duceppe when you couldn't even vote for his party. Proportional representation would change that though, not that I would expect many non-Quebecers to vote for them. But yeah, B.Q. shouldn't be seen as a seperatist group, they're more of an alternative to seperation.
Katzaniel Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Oh, yeah, I wasn't saying that. Had a good chat with Celes last election about the Bloc, so I understand that now. PS. You all voted yet? (Well, okay, Canid told me she did. Did you, Tyrion?)
Tyrion Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Yes, I went a couple of hours ago, right before my first post in this thread. It's a shame my dad can't vote, his boss has issues so he couldn't come from Boston this weekend. The voting system is ridiculous though, all I'd have to do is dress differently, shave my goatee and I could vote in his place, since I have his voting card and they don't ask for ID. I would never do that, but they could take 2 seconds to verify ID before letting you vote. They had a thing on TV a couple years ago where they sent a woman to vote 6 times in one election just to show how dumb it was. Edited January 23, 2006 by Tyrion
Katzaniel Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Yeah, I was wondering about that. And don't they send those by mail? Open? Like, I could go around to my neighbours and collect all their cards. There isn't even a picture on them. Or a mention of hair colour, or eye colour, or height. I could go all over the *city* and collect those from people's mailboxes. And then I'd be in 4 ridings. In fact, you could gather 10 friends from all different ridings, ie cities too, and then each of you gathers 10 cards, and you'd each only have to fake-vote once per riding. If you were willing to risk being recognized, or could gather more friends, you could do more. Bleh.
Tyrion Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 And with a voting rate of 55%, you have a good chance that the person you took it from won't be missing their card. "They didn't send me one, but I wasn't gonna vote anyway." It's like they're asking for vote tampering, it wouldn't cost anything to ask for a piece of ID when handing in the card. Here they have two people behind a desk, one to cross out your name, the other to hand you your ballot, I'm sure one of them has time to verify your name. That's how they do it in municipal elections over here.
Canid Posted January 24, 2006 Author Report Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) I wonder how often that actually happens... In any case, I'm not saying 15 major parties is likely to happen (though in 300 years, who knows how our parliament will be arranged), only that the system we have allows for it. Four parties on the other hand is happening now. What if it's another minority(as seems likely)? Back to the polls in 18 months? 24 if we're really lucky? ...and then it's election time again and the money will roll out left, right and centre (har har dee har) so the ballance of power can undergo another minor, or major re-shuffle and HOPEFULLY achieve a majority that time around so our government will "work" again. About keeping the media around elections uncluttlered, it should be noted that the Green party IS actually getting federal funding. Over 1 million dollars a year. A new system of party funding was introduced as of the last election, granting $1.75 per vote per year to any party recieving over two percent of the national vote: the Green Party recieved 4.3. In the Liberal's defense, I don't think they actually have anything new to fix or sort out; nothing at least that they haven't had for the past few decades. They have a less certain leadership than they did (Jean Chrétien was a good guy), but other than that they are essentially the same party. The sponsorship scandal was appauling, yes, but it is a big party and these things happen. I am positive that if you look into Conservative history you'll find equally outrageous atrocities (though none so publicised). As long as it is dealt with, I am not worried. The Conservatives on the other hand are not the traditional Conservatives of Canadian history, it is a merger of the Alliance and the Reform parties. It is a party of pollitical and moral extremes, many of which are worrying. For the purposes of this election, they are trying to appear moderate; do you think they actually are? Edited January 24, 2006 by Canid
Tyrion Posted January 24, 2006 Report Posted January 24, 2006 I doubt it, really. And I actually like the 4-party formula. I don't like majority governments. It makes things easier for parties, and that shouldn't happen, especially since representatives are very strongly discouraged from voting against their parties. Majority parties would allow too many things to happen. You'd have good and awful years in the country depending on who's in power and what your point of view is. Imagine a conservative majority government. They'd surely make gay marriage illegal again. Since I think every other party opposes them on that issue, the moment they lose the majority gay marriage will be legal again. What's the point of making decisions if they're just going to be reversed again all the time? With minority governments, changes are harder to make, but those changes will stay.
Canid Posted January 24, 2006 Author Report Posted January 24, 2006 ...and I'm not arguing against minority governments.... it is a great way to run a country. I don't like the way non-confidence works, it doesn't support that minority system that both of us seem to like.
Gwaihir Posted January 24, 2006 Report Posted January 24, 2006 For some reason we have a Canadian flag outside my building. Well, someone in my building doesn't seem to approve of Canada's having elections because the flag was at half mast yesterday. Today however, it's back to normal (so it wasn't an accident.)
Tamaranis Posted January 25, 2006 Report Posted January 25, 2006 Maybe they were anti-conservative, and felt that a conservative government forming was worthy of flying a flag at half mast... No one is apathetic about that party, they either love them or hate them. I get more and more jaded about this kind of thing every time we have an election. I've come to the conlcusion that all politicians are liars, because politicians have realized that despite what everyone says, all they really want are some nice, comfortable lies.
Vigil StarGazer Posted January 25, 2006 Report Posted January 25, 2006 Oh Hamburger, Our own native Ham. Two oz. of Love, In all thy low fat ham. With Growing Hearth, We see thee Roast our cattles' mad cow disease free From far and wide Oh hamburger, we import from calgary. God We loves our ham, between two piece of bread. Oh hamburger they're 100% fat free Oh hamburger they're 100% fat free
The Big Pointy One Posted January 25, 2006 Report Posted January 25, 2006 I just don't really believe in government; no matter who's voted in, it's gonna be someone who's gonna muck everything up one way or another. To me, when it's at the point to pick 'the lesser of (x) evils', it's time to either stop voting, or start my own party. Since I don't really want to be involved, nor do I have the 'skills' to, I'll just stick to non-voting.
Recommended Posts