percy

I think if we adopt the notion that coalition governments are to exist, then we need a framework so that it is fair and democratic. Alot of the rhetoric surrounding this so-called crisis that is passed as fact, is in fact incorrect.

I have heard numerous times that 2/3 of the country didn't vote conservative. Actually, 2/3 of voters didn't vote conservative out of the 60% who took the time to vote. That isn't 2/3 of the country.

I have heard repeatedly that everyday Canadians has lost confidence in the conservatives (ie see Toronto Star). The members of the House lost confidence, not everyday people on the street, but that's what we are told.


It is not undemocratic to force the ruling party out of power just as it is not undemocratic for the ruling party to counter that notion before a non-confidence vote.

Anyway, my point is this. If we adopt coalitions in the future, we need rules. For instance if one party calls an election and wins a minority, the next day the coalition can't expect to show up for work assuming because they didn't win, they automatically get to rule because the majority lost. We will get nowhere fast.

Incidentally some of the most corrupted governments in the world, where backroom dealing is the norm because of coalitions, such as Italy and Israel,..are in array because of the coalition system they endorse.

I am not saying coalitions shouldn't happen, but we need checks and balances to not lose sight of the purpose of the function of government, that being something called democracy (if it exists)

The bright side would be the disallowance of dictators like Chretien and Harper but could spell the beginning of polarization and corruption.

By the people for the people, eh
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 08 : 41 : 31-----
,...or imagine a House where all the members don't belong to any party and all sit as independants.

By the people for the,....