49th Parallel Has Canadians Confused About Voting In Federal Elections In Canada….Just Saying….

Posted on by

October 15, 2015         Andrew Chernoff

Just-saying

It has occurred to me that one of the reasons most Canadians have no logic or reason behind their voting in federal elections is that most Canadians live near the Canada-U.S. border.

And some do not vote at all, then grumble and complain for four more years like they had no way to influence which federal party would be the government of Canada. That is why it is so important to vote.

An estimated 75 percent of Canadians live within 161 kilometers (100 miles) of the U.S. border, according to http://travel.nationalgeographic.com.

According to CBC News, 90 Per cent of Canadians who live within 160 kilometres of the U.S. border as of 2009, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/by-the-numbers-1.801937.

About four-fifths of the population lives within 150 kilometres (93 mi) of the contiguous United States border.[200] Approximately 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor, the British Columbia Lower Mainland, and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.[201, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada.

I for one will admit I have followed U.S. politics closely since the summer of 1972 when my family moved from Kitimat, B.C. to Midway B.C. and I had access to NBC, ABC and CBS, and  became educated in their political system and it is striking.

When I lived in Kitimat B.C. and Ocean Falls B.C. (where I was born) the main television station was CBC and it was Canadian politics I became acquainted with and watched from time to time, due to my parents, unless I went outside to play and be a kid.

You can’t blame all those Canadians from being unduly influenced by our Southern neighbours, especially when it comes to politics and voting in elections. There are great differences between U.S. and Canadian political systems when voting.

Here is a brief explanation of some differences between the United States and Canada:

From: http://www.parl.gc.ca:

  • In the United States, the president, the senators and the representatives are elected for different periods, it can happen, and often does, that the president belongs to one party while the opposing party has a majority in either the Senate or the House of Representatives or both. So for years on end, the president may find his or her legislation and policies blocked by an adverse majority in one or both houses. The president cannot appeal to the people by dissolving either house, or both: he or she has no such power, and the two houses are there for their fixed terms, come what may, until the constitutionally fixed hour strikes.
  • The Canadian prime minister did not appear in the written Constitution until 1982. It still contains not one syllable on prime ministerial qualifications, the method of election or removal, or the prime minister’s powers (except for the calling of constitutional conferences). Nor is there anything on any of these matters in any Act of Parliament, except for provision of a salary, pension and residence for the person holding the recognized position of first minister. Everything else is a matter of established usage, of “convention.” There is nothing in any law requiring the prime minister or any other minister to have a seat in Parliament; there is just a custom that he or she must have a seat, or get one within a reasonable time. There is nothing in any law to say that a government that loses its majority in the House of Commons on a matter of confidence must either resign (making way for a different government in the same House) or ask for a fresh general election.
  • While the United States has a republic form of government, Canada has a a constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, exercise power, with the monarchs having ceded power and remaining as a titular position.
  • In Canada, all important legislation is introduced by the government, and all bills to spend public funds or impose taxes must be introduced by the government and neither house can raise the amounts of money involved. As long as the government can keep the support of a majority in the House of Commons, it can pass any legislation it sees fit unless an adverse majority in the Senate refuses to pass the bill (which very rarely happens nowadays). If it loses its majority support in the House of Commons, it must either make way for a government of another party or call a fresh election. If it simply makes way for a government of a different party, then that government, as long as it holds its majority in the House of Commons, can pass any legislation it sees fit, and if it loses that majority, then it, in its turn, must either make way for a new government or call a fresh election. In the United States, president and Congress can be locked in fruitless combat for years on end. In Canada, the government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons.

In Canada, when a federal political party forms government, the political leader of that political party automatically becomes the prime minister. There is no separate election in Canada to elect a prime minister like there is in the United States.

In Canada, pollsters ask Canadians who they would prefer as prime minister, like it matters: the prime minister is the horse or donkey, and the rest of those that are elected follow along.

The prime minister as leader of that cart literally is along for the ride….Well o.k., I may have simplified it a little….. Still, that successful party leader literally rides the coattails of his/her party elected members of parliament to the powerful position of prime minister. And that is the short of it.

Instead of the winning federal party determining  a leader of the government from their ranks that have been elected, the parties at a convention of the federal party, elect a person who will lead their party into an election and if successful, that person will then as leader of the party, become Canada’s prime minister.

Nanos Research recently asked Canadians in a poll who they preferred for prime minister. The results were Trudeau was the choice of 33.0% Canadians followed by Harper at 28.8%, Mulcair at 19.9%, May at 6.4%, Duceppe at 1.8% and 10.3% of Canadians were unsure. (Three-day tracking: Oct 10, 11 & 13/15)

What happens if you like the political party but not the leader? Most Canadians have little or no say in the election of a future prime minister of a federal political party, even though all Canadians have an opportunity to vote for a political party in a federal election.

It’s all about voting strategy, eh?

Which is more important to Canadians:

  • The attraction of the federal party leader in determining who to vote for;
  • Or, the federal party policies and platform in an election, damn the leader?
  • And to make things more interesting, your vote is only cast for the party representative in your federal constituency: what if you don’t believe that party candidate is the best person to represent your constituents? Is that important?
  • Or, are you voting for the federal party leader using the constituent candidate of that party as the leaders’ proxy?
  • Or, are you in effect voting the federal party when you vote for that particular party candidate not caring whether the person is the best person or not, to represent your constituency?

So, Canadians don’t vote separately for a federal political party and prime minister. And I will throw this in just to create more frustration: Canadians do not elect Senators that take part in Canada’s political system. The prime minister appoints those sitting federal government politicians; or non-sitting as it turns out most of the time.

I sincerely believe that the 80-90 per cent of all Canadians that live within 100 miles of the Canada-U.S. border have been brainwashed by too much of a political romance with United States politics because it is more appealing, entertaining, logical and sensible.

Canadians may say, may claim, they understand, when they vote, why they voted the way they did, and what it means, or could mean, or hope it meant…..but do they…..I mean….it isn’t as easy as putting an “X” by my constituency candidate is it? What if I like the candidate but not the party? And should I vote for the “right party” so the constituency has a member of parliament that is part of the party in power because the constituency can get things it needs much easier than not? And who is the “right party”? Like, what if it is a minority government? Did I waste my vote: depends why I voted I guess……

God, a lot to think about…….sure do…….this is interfering with my enjoyment of the start of the Vancouver Canucks road to the NHL playoffs in 2016…..the Toronto Blue Jays back in the MLB playoffs after 22-years…..and of course, what is happening with those B.C. Lions……

And don’t get me started on the NFL……or the 2015-2016 television season.

Oh, hell…..where is my two-sided coin….heads I will pick…..and tails I will pick….nope will not work…..need two coins to get the three main federal political parties……good though……cause I can include the federal Green party….so….on the second coin…..heads I will pick….and tails I will pick…..then I will have a playoff with the two winners on a third and separate coin……heads I will pick…..and tails I will pick……WOOHOO….HOUSTON WE HAVE A WINNER…..

It is a secret ballot of course, so I am unable to disclose my choice in my constituency of British Columbia Southern Interior because I haven’t voted yet…..I live on the West Coast….Think of it….My vote could be the difference maker in this nail bitter of an election……..Have to keep that choice close  to my chest….Don’t want to spoil the suspense and drama of it all….Just saying…..

Nearly 100 groups, unions, Conservative opponents register as third parties during election

Posted on by

Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015       FROM:  http://www.hilltimes.com

The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright. Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre .Kingsley, pictured in this file photo, says the record number of registered third parties during this election campaign could be indicative of voter turnout.

By TIM NAUMETZ |
Published: Wednesday, 10/14/2015 9:34 pm EDT

PARLIAMENT HILL – A record number of unions, coalitions, democracy groups and individual electors have registered to advertise as third parties for or against political parties or candidates in the Oct. 19 general election, a sign one leading expert says means electors are aware “the stakes are high” as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives battle to hang on to power.

A total of 96 labour groups and unions, health and social advocates, nursing associations and electoral change lobbies who for the most part oppose Mr. Harper, along with a sprinkling of Conservative supporters, are registered as third parties with Elections Canada, nearly double the 55 third parties that registered for the 2011 federal election, when Mr. Harper won a majority government.

Elections Canada status as a registered third party gives each of the groups, associations or individuals the legal ability to spend up to $439,410 nationally, or $8,788 per electoral district, supporting or opposing candidates or parties or their policies and platforms.

“People are seeing that the stakes are high,” former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said in an interview with The Hill Times as he commented on the record high in interest among groups, who for the most part are opponents or critics of the Conservative government, recent registrants as representatives of milk and dairy product farmers, supporters of strategic voting who want to ensure one of the opposition parties form government or advocates of electoral reform.

The 2006 election, when Mr. Harper first won power as prime minister, recorded the third highest number of registered third parties, a total of 78, on Elections Canada records going back to the June, 2004, election.

“I’m glad that we still have a third-party regime, so that people can actually do so in a meaningful way and we, the electors, can actually know who they are and whom they favour,” Mr. Kingsley said, referring indirectly to an unsuccessful court challenge Mr. Harper launched in 2000, when he was president of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition, against limits on third-party spending in election campaigns. Mr. Harper ultimately lost his Alberta court challenge in 2004 on a federal government appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“I think it’s probably (also) due to the fact that it’s, well, initially a three-way race and a lot of people saw their advantage in joining as third parties,” said Mr. Kingsley, chief electoral officer from 1990 to December 2006.

Mr. Kingsley said the high rate of third-party registrations combined with a record surge in the number of advance voters for this election could be an indication of high turnout on Oct. 19 election day.

Elections Canada on Wednesday reported preliminary figures that show an estimated 3,633,422 electors cast ballots in four days of advance voting from Friday, Oct. 9, to Monday, Oct. 12, a 73 per cent increase from the 2,100,855 electors who cast ballots during advance voting in the 2011 election, despite reports of long delays due to the limited number of ballot boxes and personnel at many polling stations.

“I hope that it’s indicative, as we marry that [third party registration] with the much higher turnout at the advance polls, I hope that we see a real increase in the participation rate, which is hovering around 60 [per cent] and I especially hope that young people, aboriginal Canadians, will go to the election in droves; this election is about them as much as it is about anybody else really,” Mr. Kingsley said, acknowledging that the groups he mentioned were directly affected by stringent new controls the Conservatives put into place for registration at the polls and the kind of ID required to cast ballots.

“That [Conservative election law changes] is a direct impact on them, but as Canadians the impact is, whichever government comes in, the policies concerning them will be very different and it would behoove them to find out what that would be, and it behooves them to go and vote in accordance with what they think is in their best long term interest as Canadians,” Mr. Kingsley said.

Unions and umbrella labour groups accounted for the largest single component of the number of registered third parties for the October election, a total of 26, while another nine are advocates for electoral reform or strategic voting to try to ensure the Conservatives don’t win enough Commons seats to form a minority government.

Conservative supporters who have registered as third parties for the Oct. 19 election include Mr. Harper’s former conservative lobby group, the National Citizens Coalition, and the Canadian Shooting Sports Federation, a vocal opponent of the federal long gun registry that Mr. Harper and his government dismantled.

Opponents include Chicken Farmers of Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada and UNIFOR, the auto workers’ union that, along with the farm groups, opposes the Harper government’s recent decision to take part in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times

The Advancement of Harperism In The Face of Glazed Eyes and Extreme Apathy….Just Saying….

Posted on by
By Andrew Philip Chernoff

Originally Published: August 5, 2013Just-saying

Is the disclosure of the Stephen Harper enemies list just further advancement of Harper’s agenda of Harperism in Canada such as was McCarthyism in the United States?

Headlines like, Harper leads a new McCarthyism in Canada; “Scary time” for Canada; Harper has now introduced McCarthyism to Canada; McCarthyism, Canadian Style have touted the similarity between so-called Harperism and McCarthyism.

Whatever the case one could make for similarities between Stephen Harper and McCarthy, others in Canada believe he has developed his own ism: Harperism that is distinct from McCarthy and more dangerous.

It’s could be called a Heinz 57 mismash of isms transformed into describing Harper’s political agenda and self serving ideology to leave a Supremacist legacy like no other Canadian Prime Minister ever has. Other leaders have tried that, like  Adolf Hitler in Germany.

No Canadian has done or ever dared to do what Stephen Harper has done, and will do, with the political mandate he has left before 2015.

Harperism has been defined as:

  • harperism |ˈhärpərˌizəm|
    noun
    1. the political philosophy that corruption is the highest good and proper aim of government.
    2. the pursuit of power; sensual self-indulgence.
    3. relentless political maneuvering. often informal; always slicker than a greased pig.
    derivatives
    harp•er•ist | noun & adjective
    harp•er•is•tic | adjective
    harp•er•is•ti•cal•ly | adverb
    harp•er•ian | adjective
  • “The January 2006 Federal election results in Canada unexpectedly yielded a minority Conservative Government. The ‘great moving right show’ is having yet another run. In Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada now has the most ideologically committed neoliberal in power since Margaret Thatcher. The five priorities Harper has announced – an accountability package; a cut in the GST; a market-based childcare system; a law and order agenda centred on sentencing; and a reduction in healthcare wait times through increased delivery flexibility – all reflect these commitments. These proposals are embedded in the overall strategic priority of aligning Canada even more tightly with the US through increased overseas military commitments and further economic integration. Canada’s move into southern Afghanistan and increased troop deployment is already sketching in the new terrain. The major boost military spending, tax cuts and marketized public services proposed in the first Harper Budget on May 2 filled in more details. This constitutes the initial agenda of Harperism. It could hardly be more pressing for the Left to take some stock of what the Harper government is and might become.” {Greg Albo, “Figuring Out Harper” (8 May 2006) zcommunications.org}
  • prime minister stephen harper conservative christian evangelical hypocrite
  • reference: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=harperism

A further definition of Harperism has been advanced by Gregory Albo as:

  • …….a clear effort to unite all reactionary and conservative forces into a coherent governing force, most notably to bring into the fold right-wing nationalists in Quebec; deeper integration with the U.S. will be pursued, initially expanding Canada’s imperialist role in military operations in Afghanistan as a component of the war strategy of the American empire, and following this up with trade and security policies to form “Fortress North America”; neoliberalism will be pushed further into social policy with greater market provision in such areas as healthcare and daycare and in the remaking fiscal federalism; and there will be a discursive emphasis on traditional Canadian “values” as a bridge to social conservatism, religious fundamentalists of all faiths. and a “law and order” platform.  This is far from the neoliberalism-lite of the Chretien government by which Canada differentiated itself from the hard right developments in the U.S.

Another has defined harperism as:

  • Harperism ™
    noun (origin, Victoria,Canada) : A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a wannabe-dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent pro-Americanism and anti-environmentalism … all while selling their country out in the name of dirty oil.    http://homercat.blogspot.ca/2012/06/harpism.html

It could be argued as well, that Harper is just plain incompetent, and very good at it….and very good at incorporating it into Harperism.

In his blog Another Point of View, Mentarch outlines his eight principles of incompetence:

  • Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.
    First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.
    Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.
    Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.
    Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.
    Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.
    Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.
    Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

In defining the intellectual sloth, Mentarch says:

  • …..such a person refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one’s “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth“.
  • To this, I also added that one who is afflicted with intellectual sloth is often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably becomes a slave of expediency. Furthermore, everything is about image and appearance, instead of substance. Truthiness, instead of truth. All of these characteristics underlie incompetence – whether as nations, as communities, as citizens, as blue-collar/white-collar workers, as parents, and/or as thinking, reasoning human beings. In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow”. Such a person thus becomes incompetent – in dealing/composing with reality, or in at least trying to understand it.

Harperism has been likened to fascism and corporatism as well:

  • The 14 common traits of fascism, which the Harper government has pretty much covered:

 

PM ~ Harper Government

[x] Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

[x] Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

[x] Supremacy of the Military

[x] Rampant Sexism

[x] Controlled Mass Media

[x] Obsession with National Security

[x] Religion and Government are Intertwined

[x] Corporate Power is Protected

[x] Labor Power is Suppressed

[x] Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

[x] Obsession with Crime and Punishment

[x] Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

[x] Fraudulent Elections

And then we have comment from a progressive conservative who goes out of his way to describe harperism within the Canadian political spectrum in the blog article How To Know When You’re Talking to a Conservative.

Are Canadians really happy with Harperism? Do Canadians believe that if they ignore getting involved that Harperism will protect them as they exercise their apathy and allow others to control their destiny and fortune?

Will drowning their sorrows, escaping into their recreational drugs, losing themselves in their technology, satisfying their other addictions and selfish interests, make for their lives better? Make for a better Canada?

So, tell me….how’s it working for ya?….Living the dream life……giving others the power and authority to make decisions for you and your loved ones?….Your wishes coming true….no cares or worries with the Pied Pipers of “the one-percent” running things for ya?……Just saying….

I conclude with this last thought:

  • First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Socialist.
  • Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
  • Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.
  • Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”
    -Martin Niemöller

Does anyone see the similarities?

Once again again, the 99 per-cent of Canadians lose.

Take care…..keep smiling…may the force be with you….work safe…drive safe….be good to each other….live long and prosper…..just saying…..

Signed,

Me

COPYRIGHT ANDREW PHILLIP CHERNOFF 2013

Wealthiest 1 percent own ‘half of all household wealth’ – report — RT News

Posted on by

Worldwide wealth inequality keeps growing, with the richest 1 percent of the global population accounting for “half of all assets in the world,” according to a new report. Meanwhile, the poorest half has just 1 percent of its wealth at its disposal.

Source: Wealthiest 1 percent own ‘half of all household wealth’ – report — RT News