The non-stupidity of Canadian elections

Bah, I hope the earth opens beneath Canada and devours that cursed country. That's the only way Ugly John will stop talking about it....

:-)

"Don't worry men, they can't hit us here"
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-00 AT 07:29AM (GMT)[p]Actually canada is a really cool country, once you get over the higher taxes, and crappy beer, and "a little tooooo" french attitude. BC is the spot though to grow some indo if you know what i mean. John you got the hookups for someone south of the border.
 
The ignorability of Canadian elections.

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-00 AT 09:03AM (GMT)[p]>There you go we`re all done.

Did anyone notice, or care? Was the result of the election published in the London newspaper? Probably not. It's kind of sad for a country which has the portrait of a queen of *another country* on their money, you'd think England would show some respect!

>Elections started at 8 AM and
>by midnight it was all
>said and done.
>We kept our prime minister.
>That`s the way to do it

For a country of only 22 million people and just nine jurisdictions, of which most of the population is found in two of them, I don't think that Canada is worthy to say they know how to manage a vote. Dade county, Florida, a disputed county, has alone, roughly one *tenth* of the *entire population* of Canada.

Also, I doubt your Prime Minister's election came down to a margin of less than one thousand votes, one thousand votes out of 250 million people (1000 votes probably seems like a huge amount in Canada :). This election is so close that even *I* would definitely request a recount, but probably wouldn't battle it on as long as Gore has.

If your country attains "major," or even "moderately influential" status (if ever), *maybe* I'll consider Canada as a serving example of how to run a country, but until then, I'm not looking to Canada as a country in any position to give nation-advice.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>Bah, I hope the earth opens
>beneath Canada and devours that
>cursed country. That's the only
>way Ugly John will stop
>talking about it....

Nah, the best way to shut him up is to prove how insignificant Canada is. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :)

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

>
>>There you go we`re all done.
>
>Did anyone notice, or care?
>Was the result of the
>election published in the London
>newspaper? Probably not.
>

Yes it was. And there were number of editorials from every european country saying "how come the americans don`t learn nothing with their northern neighbors?"
You still don`t get that you`re the laughing stock of the entire world, not only the developed countries but even in the third world;
a giant that preaches democracy and can`t even make an election right, a president that is elected but didn`t got the majority of the votes of his countrymen, lawyers everywhere with gimmicks to get the election by every mean possible...
I could go on for ages, look, the guys from the states really don`t understand for now, but you`ll get it latter.This process brought much more damage in the way the world watches the us than what your politicians think.

>>Elections started at 8 AM and
>>by midnight it was all
>>said and done.
>>We kept our prime minister.
>>That`s the way to do it
>
>For a country of only 22
>million people and just nine
>jurisdictions, of which most of
>the population is found in
>two of them, I don't
>think that Canada is worthy
>to say they know how
>to manage a vote.
>Dade county, Florida, a disputed
>county, has alone, roughly one
>*tenth* of the *entire population*
>of Canada.

that means they have ten times the voters that you have in florida,and they wraped it up in four hours!...Florida counting is taking what, three weeks? brilliant, those florida guys must be working hard not to look canadian, shame they`re working too hard...


>If your country attains "major," or
>even "moderately influential" status (if
>ever), *maybe* I'll consider Canada
>as a serving example of
>how to run a country,
>but until then, I'm not
>looking to Canada as a
>country in any position to
>give nation-advice.
>
Great nations stumble quickly, you know that. Maybe if they listened to some advice in the right moment they wouldn`t...


"shichisho hokoku"
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

You see ? They only effect it has is triggering another pro-canada response.

*sigh* Here we go again.....

:-)

"Don't worry men, they can't hit us here"
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

I live in England I read the papers and guess what no mention I didn't even know you were having an election.
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

Yes there was, i watched that thing in sky news where they show next day covers and it was mentioned.
Hmmmm, i wonder if this is going yo reach aptyp`s record ;-) ...



"shichisho hokoku"
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

>Yes it was. And there were
>number of editorials from every
>european country saying "how come
>the americans don`t learn nothing
>with their northern neighbors?"

Pretty ironic judging from that European "Union" over there.

>You still don`t get that you`re
>the laughing stock of the
>entire world, not only the
>developed countries but even in
>the third world;
> a giant that preaches democracy
>and can`t even make an
>election right, a president that
>is elected but didn`t got
>the majority of the votes
>of his countrymen,

That has to do with the electoral college which was established so that candidates would not just flock to population centers for their votes. That way each state has its own pull in the Union. Canada.. well you visit about five cities and you've visited 80% of the population.

>lawyers everywhere
>with gimmicks to get the
>election by every mean possible...

I can't defend Gore's actions, he should have accepted defeat after the over-seas ballots.

>I could go on for ages,
>look, the guys from the
>states really don`t understand for
>now, but you`ll get it
>latter.This process brought much more
>damage in the way the
>world watches the us than
>what your politicians think.

I sincerely doubt that. Extra-national opinion rarely has much effect on the USA. The stock market is all that's shown any effect, and most of that was internal.

>that means they have ten times
>the voters that you have
>in florida,and they wraped it
>up in four hours!...

The machine ballot counting for the country took only a day. It is the manual recounts that are taking so long. The Prime Minister's victory did not warrant hand-recounting because it was not very close.

>Florida counting
>is taking what, three weeks?
>brilliant, those florida guys must
>be working hard not to
>look canadian, shame they`re working
>too hard...

Different set of circumstances. This election is taking long by normal election standards in our country. Normally the margin of victory is great enough that hand recounts do no good, but when you're dealing with an election that is decided by a margin of 1000 votes, the system changes, and it takes longer.

>Great nations stumble quickly, you know
>that. Maybe if they listened
>to some advice in the
>right moment they wouldn`t...

Great nations stumble but catch themselves quickly. Lesser nations stumble and they fall.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

I get your points, xotor, but this time you haven`t convinced me.
I´m not happy that the most important partner in nato can`t even elect their president, giving a show of imcompetence and doubt to the world.
It`s also giving room for those that think that europe (or in central and south america) should move away from the present relationship with the states and try new approaches.
Not because of rational judgement, but because of intuition, since you`re giving an image of weekness and confusion.

The electoral college idea rose from the dificulties of comunnication and the lack of technology, things that are surpassed now. Your checks and ballances between states and the legislative body in the whole are very effective with the way members of congress and the senate are elected, works fine, there`s no need for an election college; this kind of college only undermines democracy by stating that the one man one vote thing doesn`t result in a rational mathematical result, with a legitimated (?) president, chosen by the majority of his people.

<Great nations stumble but catch themselves quickly. Lesser nations stumble and they fall.>
We`re both rigth on this...



"shichisho hokoku"
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

Canada: good beer, stuff can cost more(because we know how to count above 10), no guns, no kids with guns, no kids with guns at school, were just bigger...you yanks will let anybody in there

America: see above but take out 'no' when necessary, and lets see if this president can keep it in his pants shall we
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

>I get your points, xotor, but
>this time you haven`t convinced
>me.
>I´m not happy that the most
>important partner in nato can`t
>even elect their president, giving
>a show of imcompetence and
>doubt to the world.
>It`s also giving room for those
>that think that europe (or
>in central and south america)
>should move away from the
>present relationship with the states
>and try new approaches.
>Not because of rational judgement, but
>because of intuition, since you`re
>giving an image of weekness
>and confusion.

However the problems shown in this election process only stress the fundamental attempt at a fair election. This is the first time it has come this close and a candidate has really tried to fight for the position. And why not? The United States presidency is the most powerful position in the world.

And since when does electoral problems show diplomatic strain? There is still an acting president. Yes, I'd be worried if there was no president and these election problems still went on, but the USA is still acting as an operating country. Even if the president was not decided when Clinton steps down, Congress, which is now a split majority, can take over the decision making. The only instability is the stock market.

>The electoral college idea rose from
>the dificulties of comunnication and
>the lack of technology, things
>that are surpassed now. Your
>checks and ballances between states
>and the legislative body in
>the whole are very effective
>with the way members of
>congress and the senate are
>elected, works fine, there`s no
>need for an election college;
>this kind of college only
>undermines democracy by stating that
>the one man one vote
>thing doesn`t result in a
>rational mathematical result, with a
>legitimated (?) president, chosen by
>the majority of his people.

No, the electoral college was established from the bottom up to allow for smaller states to have some power of election. Imagine what it would be like without the electoral college. The candidates would only hover around major cities, ignoring some places altogether (as if it wasn't that way already in some places). Take New York City with 17 million people, roughly 6% of the total population of the country.

I'm not particularly fond of the electoral college myself, but I see the need for it. Also the college can't be amended away unless 2/3rds of the states ratify it, which is not likely to happen.

It is an issue of state vs federal rights. States wish to maintain control over their own elections and also the power of their electoral votes. Most nations are not as sub-divided as the United States, most aren't even large enough to do it.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

>Canada: good beer, stuff can cost
>more(because we know how to
>count above 10),

Rather your exchange rate makes your money worth so little. You'd probably get more money out of selling the metal your dollar coins are made of. What is it $1.00(CA) to $0.65(USA) now?

>no guns,

That sucks, your nation must be pretty defenseless.

>no kids with guns, no
>kids with guns at school,

That's more a result of the push for both parents to be working with no support for the children. The guns are not the problem.

>were just bigger...

With only 10% of the land even used, and 80% of the population within 100 miles of the United States. You're a nation dependant on the United States.

>you yanks will
>let anybody in there

That's because everyone wants to live here, the land of the free. Who are we to say who is unworthy to step into our land? (except illegal immigrants)

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.

candain beer sucks. it has all the charm of driking lizard piss. You know canada does do a lot of things well like hockey, and raising one of the best djs to walk the planet A-Trak. But besides that, i dont know.
 
Proves how incompetant our country is. We're the laughingstock of the whole world...

-Silencer

"Your ride's over, mutie. Time to die." - Frank Horrigan
 
See, at least someone admits it. Xotor, in the yearly ranking by the UN of countries with the highest living standards and living quality, Canada finished, for the 5th consecutive time, on first place. The States were somewhere around 10th, after countries such as Norway, Holland and Australia.

"Blessed are those who break the rules."
 
>See, at least someone admits it.
>Xotor, in the yearly ranking
>by the UN of countries
>with the highest living standards
>and living quality, Canada finished,
>for the 5th consecutive time,
>on first place.

I'd like to see these statistics if you could provide me the webpage. From what I've searched on, Canada, while it does maintain a high standard of living, doesn't quite live up to its legacy:

http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20000808_caliving.htm

According to the above article, only seven states report standards of living less than that of Canada, and one third report standards of living *higher* than that of Canada.

>The States
>were somewhere around 10th, after
>countries such as Norway, Holland
>and Australia.

However you are not seeing the entire situation. These countries with very high standards of living have VERY small populations. I would not be surprised if the United States has more people than every country that supposedly beat it in standard of living *combined*. Take for example Norway, which has only four million people, or the Neatherlands, with 154 million, both less than the population of New York City alone. In fact New York City is only five million people short of the entire population of Canada.

Therefore you could think that the if you put these high standard of living countries into the United States, you'd basically be forming the sectors of the United States which do have high standards of living.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top