Actually Ace hits the nail on the as to why Layton's efforts to bring about the January compromise was genius.
On one hand, if the compromise was accepted by the Liberals, we get an election in early February, we get to see Gomery II before we vote, the Liberals don't get an extra eight weeks to buy their way to victory and we don't have a Christmas election
On the other hand, if they don't accept the compromise, the governement falls now (tonight actually), the Liberals don't have 10 extra weeks to buy their way to victory and ALL of the opposition gets to hold Martin responsible to a Christmas election by saying, we were being reasonable and offered a compromise... Martin was not being reasonable and forced a Christmas election.
Win-win. You can see why Harper and Ducieppe supported this effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highthief
3) I'd just prefer the NDP doesn't keep getting special treatment. Even when they lose official status (as they did federally under McLaughlin and in Ontario under Hampton) they keep getting the rules bent for them so they have more of a voice in parliament than they deserve based on performance.
4) I agree - I'd rather see a form of proportional representation, but one more workable with 4 or 5 major parties than you see in Europe or Israel where often, nothing gets done and governments fall every 6 months.
|
I can understand your point on number three, but feel number four would solve this issue. First past the post had the NDP and the Conservatives getting greater portions of the popular vote than their number of seats reflects. As a result the Houses don't reflect the actual votes of the people.
If we had proportional representation, I think you would see the rise of more parties over time as people see the effectiveness of their votes. It might even allow for the rebirth of something like the PCs. I think over time you would see the rise of coalition governments rather than majority governments.