An anonymous reader writes "For those with a stake in the opposition of Jim Prentice's C-61, the Canadian DMCA, this previous week's election results will be displeasing. The Conservative Party, which promised to reintroduce the DMCA if elected, gained 19 seats this election, mostly at the expense of the flagging liberal party, a mere 12 short of a majority government. The increase in Conservative representation, as well as the relatively low profile of this issue amidst other, more pressing concerns, increases the likelihood that the son of C-61 will come to fruition. On a positive note, the number of MPs supporting Geist's copyright pledge has increased to 34. Given the Conservative Party's historic disregard of public opinion, however, the efforts of the copyright-pledge MPs will have to rally the full opposition across three major parties in order to defeat the bill. A mere 12 MPs now stand between the Canadian public and the MAFIAA's hungry maw."
You're absolutely wrong. Michael Geist writes a column for the Toronto Star which has a large readership and many 'common folk' were enlightened by his articles, and the Facebook group drew an immense popularity. There were so many people caring that they've prevented the last two from going through.
Yeah, I think you'd be surprised. A bunch of my friends (of which a large percentage are not really geeks) have joined that group and are quite aware of the issues at stake.
Ironically, the first to join it was a friend who wants to be an IP lawyer.
Lots of IP lawyers are against DMCA, etc. They actually understand what it means to consumers. Some IP law makes sense, so you do need IP lawyers. Lawyers aren't ALL evil you know.;)
Hopefully, with all of Ray Beckerman [blogspot.com]'s submissions to Slashdot, a decent percentage of Slashdot feels this way; that for every Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] (who, thankfully, has been disbarred [wikipedia.org]) there are lawyers who practice the law for more noble reasons.
Yeah, I'm encouraged to believe that this is starting to seep into the mainstream. I actually heard DVD DRM being negatively discussed in the context of consumer gadgetry on a (not particularly geek-oriented) morning radio show a little while ago.
The recent xkcd [xkcd.com] strip "Steal This Comic" [xkcd.com] makes a solid and concise against the DMCA and similar laws. If you want your non-geek acquaintances to understand why this matters, you might consider showing it to them.
There were so many people caring that they've prevented the last two from going through.
No, timing and the way the Westminster parliamentary system works prevented them from going through. They weren't voted down, they died on the floor because of an election.
The previous minority Conservative government passed about the same amount of legislation in its shortened time in office compared to what a majority government would usually pass in the same amount of time.
Meanwhile, they wrote a manual on how to make parliament non-functional, followed it to the letter, and blamed the opposition for them not being able to get anything done.
Nah, more like very few people care who's in charge of this country. A lot of folks used to be indifferent, now we're just all annoyed with the candidates. Harper's a robot, the two before him were stone-faced crooks, and the locals just make it worse.
The way the Canadian electoral system works, we've been voting for the same local inbred candidates for the last 20 years. There's no new blood, which means often times to support your preferred party, you also have to support some idiot that's going to shi
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 19 2008, @10:21PM (#25436985)
Very few outside of geeks care about the DMCA.
Quite true, but in this election a lot of geeks weren't even aware that Harper planned to re-introduce the DMCA. There were several submissions in the firehose before the election, when the news had a chance of having an effect, but Slashdot didn't publish them. Probably more of a kdawsonfud effect if they only publish these things when the electorate don't have a choice.
It's the same sloppy editing that brought us the mis-reported UK 42 days detention [slashdot.org] story. And the same sloppy editing that has refused to publish the stories in the firehose, saying The Lords have rejected it [bbc.co.uk].
The real problem here is the system. Let's take a look at the ratios between the percentage of seats each party got in the election, and their percentage of the national popular vote:
Conservative Seats: 143/308 Popular Vote: 37.63% Ratio: 2.03 (More than twice the seats they would have obtained under a 100% proportional system.)
Liberal Seats: 76/308 Popular Vote: 26.24% Ratio: 0.94
BLOC Quebecois Seats: 50/308 Popular Vote: 9.97% Ratio: 1.63 (Interesting thing here; because voters in Quebec will vote the BLOC in much more often, they're skewed way above other parties even though they're practically running only in Quebec.)
NDP Seats: 37/308 Popular Vote: 18.20% Ratio: 0.66 (Screwed once again.)
Independent Seats: 2/308 Popular Vote: 0.65 Ratio: 0.999 (Oddly proportional.)
Green Seats: 0/308 Popular Vote: 6.80% Ratio: 0.0 (Yeah. 6.8% of the vote, 0% of the representation. Good stuff.)
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP [wikipedia.org] a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.
At the Federal level first past the post has been used in Canada for most of its history.
Why now do people want proportional representation?
It is simple. Canada is general left leaning and pretty much small "l" liberal. Canada historically votes for a Federal Liberal party. But now things are changing. There is a shift of power in Canada to the west, as well as a move to the right on the political spectrum.
The Conservatives in Canada managed to finally unite the right over the past decade and a half. The Bloc Quebecois became a major force that literally takes away 50 seats in parliament that won't go to the Liberals or the Conservatives. The left is more fractured than ever with the NDP, Federal Liberals, and the Green party all spitting the vote.
What does this mean? The only way Canada will get a left leaning government again is if they unite themselves OR change to a method of proportional representation. It is not likely the NDP and Liberals will merge (Liberals and Green more likely). This isn't enough to compete with a united right.
So now we have the left uniting not as a party, but as a force to push proportional representation - because they are too stubborn to have their parties work together.
For the same reason the right Reform/Alliance/CPC united themselves.
The left can't seem to compromise among themselves to rule together under a unified leftist party. And it is this failure on the left that is handing the Conservatives the power.
It is either unite like the right did or change the system. The Conservatives used the existing electoral system to rebuild. The left realize the system that worked so well for them for over 100 years now puts them on the defensive.
I'm a Liberal who actually v
No. What you do is what the europeans have been doing for decades: coalition governments. So, what you'd get is a "liberal" govt, with 1/3 of the cabinet NDP in the portfolios they need (labour, housing, welfare, etc.) and let the Greens have Environment.
Bingo. That would kick ass and put Canada aright.
The problem is the NDP leadership is a bunch of whiny 5 year olds, the Liberal leadership is too interested in knifing each other in the back to care, and they're both sceptical of the greens because, unlike in the USA, the Greens are actually more right wing than the Liberals in terms of fiscal ideas. I'm surprised Harper hasn't offered to go down on May for Green support to greenwash the Conservatives.
sigh. Still, Harper faced the most inarticulate and inept Liberal candidate in decades, and wasn't able to get a majority, so that shows you how little support the conservatives actually have.
Argh. I really dig Canada, but their politics are completely fucked.
Please elaborate on why aboriginals need guaranteed seats. Maybe we should give guaranteed seats to jews, muslims, indians, haitians, homosexual, woman, clowns, dentists, and nurses, too.
On the other hand, aboriginals already have a garanteed seat in the form of the seat for Nunavut.
MMP failed in Ontario because it was poorly explained to voters, The and the referendum question was unclear. Also it was not full MMP, but a hybrid where the province would add additional MP's on top of the ridings based on the percentage of popular vote. These MP's would be declared on a list prior to the election, however they could also run in a riding, so a party could protect ministers who were defeated in their riding, but end up sitting as an MMP member. MMP members also would not be accountable to any riding. This is a worse system the the current first past the post system.
The current parliamentary system equally helps and hurts the conservatives and the liberals at different times. During liberal majorities the Reform and PC parties would often split votes to the benefit of the liberal candidate. No system is perfect, but historically the Parliamentary system has been probably been balanced between both major parties.
Also, it should be pointed out - and that the post clearly misses, that the Conservatives have a minority government. this means they do have the most seats of any party, but all other parties still have more seats then them - this means they need the help of another party to pass legislation. If their plans are that bad, it is the responsibility of the opposition to cause the government to fall. If they choose not to, you cant solely blame the Government for its passage.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 19 2008, @07:19PM (#25435757)
The consequences of first-past-the-post is that the most powerful party gets even MORE power, while less powerful parties get less than they deserve (analogy of making the rich richer and the poor poorer).
The irony is that only the most powerful party at any given time would be able to change this undemocratic reality, and shift to proportional representation. But obviously, they don't want to, because that'll reduce their power. It's the opposition which always supports changing FPTP to proportional (which will increase their power). But lo and behold, as soon as the opposition becomes the primary party, they immediately go to the start of the paragraph and realize they don't want the change anymore. Now, the former power holders want to change, but they no longer have the power.
The only party who can change the system, don't want to change it, and those that want to change it, can't. This statement will hold true regardless of which party is in power.
Your system seems to be much better than the one we have in Brazil, where the results are computed for the whole state, instead of by district.
The result of a proportional voting system is that *every* special interest politician is elected. We have dozens of representatives elected by different churches, and they all vote in a block on religious issues. We have dozens of trade union representatives. We have the "ruralist bench", representatives elected on farming issues. We have representatives for individ
Well, we realize that fully proportional representation would have those problems as well, which is why we were looking at mixed-member proportional, which is kind of a half and half system (though there are still more in the first past the post "half" than the proportional one). I believe you still have to get some minimum percentage of votes nationwide to get any list candidates put in as well.
The voting system we have in Brazil isn't totally proportional, but still it raises more problems than it solves. Each party must have a minimum percentage of the vote to elect representatives. The total vote for the party is computed, a candidate for a popular party needs less votes to get elected.
A sad example of how this, very complex, voting system works is that this clown got elected and got three other representatives in his party elected [wikipedia.org] when he ran as a "protest" candidate, i.e. people voted for him because they thought no one was a worthy candidate. His motto was "my name is Eneas" and his main political project was that Brazil should detonate the nuclear weapon that reportedly was developed here in the early 1980s.
It's not like those special-interest reps will get to make policy without having to win over the rest of them, right?
Wrong. The railway workers representative will gladly vote for the project granting special tax benefits for churches in exchange for special retirement rules for railway workers. Just remember one small fact: there are no ideological differences between different special interests.
The real problem here at Slashdot is that the people don't seem to understand the principle of party-line votes.
It's true that, with only a dozen votes to gather in order to pass a bill, the Conservatives might go shopping for - forgive me - the odd maverick willing to go along with them on just that one vote.
And that might happen, but I really doubt it. The Canadian party system (and consequently the parliamentary system) is predicated on bloc voting. That's not going to
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 19 2008, @07:24PM (#25435803)
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.
Your math might be correct but your premise is flawed. MMP and proportional representation are a disaster. I campaigned & voted against MMP. MMP and PR condemn us to permanent minority governments, with most parliamentary effort going into backroom deals to stay in power instead of governing. Governments with MMP or PR are always shaky.
You are taking away the right of the people to elect (and REMOVE) their representatives. MMP and PR demolish accountability.
Example: I live in the Trinity-Spadina riding in Toronto, where Olivia Chow (NDP) cruised to an easy victory because she is popular with the voters. If the people of Trinity-Spadina decide that they don't like Olivia Chow, if they think Olivia Chow is corrupt, incompetent, lazy, or any other reason, the people of Trinity-Spadina can organize and REMOVE Olivia Chow from office (and her extravagant $155,000 salary). The only people who can put Olivia Chow into office (and remove her) are the people of Trinity-Spadina. Olivia Chow is accountable to the voters.
On the other hand, with MMP or PR, since every party will get some share of the vote, the only determinant of whether Olivia Chow gets a cushy job with a $155,000 salary is if she keeps the NDP party bosses happy. The only people who can put Olivia Chow into office (and remove her) are the party bosses. Olivia Chow is no longer accountable to the voters.
Now, first past the post does have its problems, but MMP & PR are even worse.
If you're going to abandon first past the post, the single transferable vote system is much better: politicians still have to answer to the people.
I moved from Canada to Denmark a few years ago, so I have a good understanding of how the two systems work. The PR system here is not in any way comparable to a minority government in Canada, because the parties are much more effective at working together. Legislation doesn't always come from the governing party, but that's no problem - as long as a sufficient number of parties support it, it's a reflection of public support as well. In effect this keeps the governing party honest without preventing them from governing effectively.
Absolutely. The system had its problems as described, but I still think it would have been better than the current one. Those problems, by the way, could be overcome by having, say, a primary-like vote on the list candidates, where you voted on them by priority. The list candidates themselves could be further subdivided into areas (like per-province) so voters wouldn't have to look at such a large list.
it gave seats to people not [...] voted into power.
This is not always a bad thing by necessity. I recall a while back there was a push to change from an appointed to elected senate. I was watching an interview with one of the current senators, unfortunately her name escapes me. She was firmly against the idea of an elected senate, and her reasons were something along the lines of (paraphrased) "if we go to an elected senate, it will take less than a decade for every seat to fill up with rich white men wi
No, it doesn't. You pretty much have the same thing with your electoral colleges. Take a look at your ratios some time; there's a reason why people had such a hue and cry over Bush being elected over Gore when the popular vote didn't reflect the victory.
I'm sorry to say it, but the Reform merger ruined the tories.
"Unite the Right" really amounted to a bunch of secular, principled conservatives compromising to quasi-fundamentalist American style conservative values. It got them elected, but at what cost?
I managed to talk to someone working for the conservative party this summer, he was a roomate in fact (uOttawa!). Anyways, the point of the legislation is to literally 1) make legislation because that is what they do and 2) hopefully not piss off any big foreign business for some ostie of a reason. They pretty much say don't worry because we wont go after the little guy but then we already have existing anti-piracy laws that work quite fine for the real trouble makers. They then say that we need to modernize the existing laws because they talk about cassette tapes. Well that's fine but there's no way law can keep up fast enough with technology. IMO the conservative party should slim the laws rather than bloat them. In canada at least, the conservative parties are known for talking about "streamlining" laws and regulations and removing the bloat.
Canadian citizens have much higher expectations of privacy than U.S. citizens do. Our privacy laws reflect this. However, if a U.S. style DMCA law were to be enacted it would lead to CRIA, etc. throwing a lot of their muscle around trying to get ISP's to divulge information that most Canadians would not approve of being shared. The conservatives would be scandalized by this, and I think they know it.
Prentice, in some circles, is regarded to be an unusually savvy politician. However, he was given the job of keeping both Canadian citizens *and* american media conglomerates happy. He was screwed, and he knew it. He drafted a law to avoid another chorus of "Blame Canada" from the U.S., but his party never tried to ram it through the HoC like they would with a bill they actually care about. In fact, the timing of when it was tabled seems to suggest that they wanted it to be cut off by the election rather than being passed.
Now, obviously, the Conservatives didn't want this bill making them look like a bunch of Bush sycophants right when Harper was trying to distance himself from that sort of accusation. (The liberals accuse Harper of being a Bush groupie on a weekly basis. It's like clockwork.)
So... What happens now? The conservatives might plan to ram unpopular legislation through ASAP and hope it's forgotten by the next election. However, I think they realize that the embarrassment C-61 (or it's successor) is going to cause will be an ongoing thing. By passing C-61, they grant power to CRIA to embarrass them with U.S.-style frivolous lawsuits at will. If CRIA were so inclined, they could deliberately wait for the next election and then turn courtroom cowboy.
Are the conservatives dumb enough to hand a foreign interest the power to embarrass their party whenever they feel like it? I tend to doubt it. It's more likely that C-61 will be amended, diddled, massaged, and ultimately only talked about just enough to keep the "Blame Canada" shouts to a manageable level. Either that, or severely castrated into a law approaching sensibility, if such a thing is possible.
whereas Conservative kind-of translates into "old-school values"
Not today's conservatives; today's conservatives are a sad shadow of what they should be, and that is fiscally conservative. Instead it really is Bush politics, and "I'll-do-like-I-want-so-back-off" way of thinking. If they were real conservatives, they would have won a majority. But they're not, sadly. I don't know what sort of kool-aid they're drinking in Calgary and Ottawa, but this is not even funny.
But of course, like you said, even the conservatives are pretty tame. Only one scandal and three outrages
The assessment of the Conservative gain is 100% wrong, and conclusions proceeding from it may also be flawed. The Conservatives were facing a grossly underfunded Liberal Party in historic disarray, and led by a man widely perceived to be utterly unfit to be Prime Minister. The time was so ripe to grab a majority that the Conservatives broke their own platform promise to stick with a scheduled election (the "It was a minority and we couldn't help it" dodge is a complete red herring). The New Democratic Party, which would be regarded in the US as raving loony communists, also picked up seats.
The Tories have now been told twice to cool their jets, and they won't be going back to the public any time soon unless they want their asses thoroughly kicked. Seven out of 10 Canadians either voted against them or didn't vote at all (a historic low turn-out, by the way).
I won't bore you with further details (except to note that of all the parties, the only one that actually got more total votes was the Green Party), but the bottom line is that this result is a repudiation of the Conservative Party's attempt to steal candy from a baby. If they choose to introduce legislation like this, which has historically been unpopular with Canadians, they'll be playing with fire. Most likely, they'll either let it slide under the guise of building inter-party amity, or they'll allow the legislation to be brought forward, but not make voting a matter of confidence.
Yes that is more or less what happened, but just like last time, Harper will continue to do whatever he pleases and govern like he has a majority.
Given no one wants another election, we can look forward to about a year of Harper dictatorship as he pushes any legislation he feels like.
For Harper the election was win-win. He had a shot at majority, but even if he failed, he would get another year at minimum where he was untouchable and could do what he wanted all the while taunting the opposition.
People seems to assume this is some sort of made in Canada fluffy bunny DMCA lite. It isn't. This is an RIAA wet dream.
People tout the lower $500 fine per file, but that is downloading, most people get busted for uploading in the USA (which most file sharing clients do) the fine for that is $20 000 per file. Which is also the fine for breaking any DRM. Say hello to bankrupting lawsuits in Canada for your kids file sharing.
It also makes "making available" a crime, where this is being challenged in the states, it will be a codified law with this bill.
It also gives the power to corporations to make anything they want law, by make EULA 100% binding. Something else that was shotdown in the USA.
Say goodbye to any semblance of fair use, or first sale doctrine type rights. They are all out the window.
Basically whatever corporations say goes and huge fines if you disagree.
Of course that this was returning was only announced days before the election so no opposition could be built up against it.
Meanwhile, with the US struggling to patch the holes in the fantasy banking game... er, I mean system... I'm inclined to think Canada's leaders should whore themselves out a little less to foreign interests, and a little more to local interests. Why enact more US-friendly laws, when their money has the not-so-remote possibility of going south of the peso ? Does Harper sign anti-piracy deals with Malaysian interests ? No ? Then he shouldn't sign them for US interests either.
Lament for a Nation is a 1965 essay of political philosophy by Canadian philosopher George Grant. The essay examined the political fate of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government in light of its refusal to allow nuclear arms on Canadian soil, and the Liberal party's poli
The problem is a perceived lack of options. The Liberal party has been in power the majority of the time since confederation but they've been plagued by scandals and weak leadership in recent years so their poll numbers are flagging. The NDP and Green parties picked up votes from the Liberals and in some cases split ridings which handed them to the Conservatives (another issue with FPTP).
I've said it for nearly 3 years now but the Conservatives aren't popular, it's just the Liberals are unpopular and th
"Conservatives" in control of the USA? I don't think so. Those are "Neocons" who've run up the largest deficit in US history and are practically socializing the nation's banks. The Bushites are about as "conservative" as the Communist Party.
I disagree with the others who say our Conservatives are different(I am Canadian). They share the same ideology (Pro Corporation, anti-socialism) and Harper seems to share the same mean spirited mud slinging personality as many republicans.
How they won is related to vote splitting and a weak Liberal leader. We have 1 right wing party, and 4 on the center left splitting the vote. Over 60% voted against the current government. But vote splitting gave them a government.
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
I don't think you understand how Canadian politics works. Unlike in the USA, the Prime Minister is a member of the house and has direct control over the party stance. This, coupled with extremely strong party discipline (you vote with the party EVERY time or you get kicked out, ruining your career), means that the P.M. is far more powerful than the President (within the political system; not in terms of overall world power) because in a majority government, the P.M. can pass basically any law he wants, as long as it satisfies the constitution.
That's not the case though, since he only has a minority of seats. Unfortunately, if a law fails to pass and it's an important one (read: whatever they want, so basically all of them), then the government fails and we have an election. But the Liberals won't allow this because they are very weak and would likely lose more in another election. If they go to the polls, it'll be about the budget or the Afghan war, not a copyright bill.
TL;DR:
The bill will pass because the opposition Liberals have too much to lose in the election that will be called if it fails. End of Story.
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
Under most parliamentary systems, MP's are far, far more likely to strictly tow their party line than in, say, the United States. This is because under such a system legislation is proposed by party leaders (when they are in power) rather than through any kind of committee system. Therefore, MP's rely on their party leaders to grant earmarks to their constituents, and thus vote more or less exactly as they are told so they will be looked upon more favorably when the time comes to distribute the pork.
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
MPs very rarely break party lines in Canada. The Harper government especially is known for strict party discipline. Additionally, with a minority government, it's even less likely that a bill tendered by the ruling party will be voted against by that party.
While it *may* indeed be horrible for DMCA opponents if/when it's drafted, this awful bill doesn't even exist yet and t
The people have spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few outside of geeks care about the DMCA.
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I think you'd be surprised. A bunch of my friends (of which a large percentage are not really geeks) have joined that group and are quite aware of the issues at stake.
Ironically, the first to join it was a friend who wants to be an IP lawyer.
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of IP lawyers are against DMCA, etc. They actually understand what it means to consumers. Some IP law makes sense, so you do need IP lawyers. Lawyers aren't ALL evil you know. ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully, with all of Ray Beckerman [blogspot.com]'s submissions to Slashdot, a decent percentage of Slashdot feels this way; that for every Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] (who, thankfully, has been disbarred [wikipedia.org]) there are lawyers who practice the law for more noble reasons.
Hopefully Canada doesn't catch the copyright madness the U.S. has; I'm glad to see that the DMCA is finally coming back to bite some of the politicians who voted for it [wired.com].
Every country needs lawyers and activists fighting for the rights of the consumer; big business should
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I'm encouraged to believe that this is starting to seep into the mainstream. I actually heard DVD DRM being negatively discussed in the context of consumer gadgetry on a (not particularly geek-oriented) morning radio show a little while ago.
The recent xkcd [xkcd.com] strip "Steal This Comic" [xkcd.com] makes a solid and concise against the DMCA and similar laws. If you want your non-geek acquaintances to understand why this matters, you might consider showing it to them.
Parent
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Funny)
makes a solid and concise against
You, my friend, are my hero. For you have nounified a preposition. Kudos to the greatest nounifier of the unnounifiable.
My loyalty is in your with, and I shall never turn in your against.
Parent
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Informative)
No, timing and the way the Westminster parliamentary system works prevented them from going through. They weren't voted down, they died on the floor because of an election.
Parent
Re:The people have spoken (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, they wrote a manual on how to make parliament non-functional, followed it to the letter, and blamed the opposition for them not being able to get anything done.
Go figure.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nah, more like very few people care who's in charge of this country. A lot of folks used to be indifferent, now we're just all annoyed with the candidates. Harper's a robot, the two before him were stone-faced crooks, and the locals just make it worse.
The way the Canadian electoral system works, we've been voting for the same local inbred candidates for the last 20 years. There's no new blood, which means often times to support your preferred party, you also have to support some idiot that's going to shi
Re:The people have spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite true, but in this election a lot of geeks weren't even aware that Harper planned to re-introduce the DMCA. There were several submissions in the firehose before the election, when the news had a chance of having an effect, but Slashdot didn't publish them. Probably more of a kdawsonfud effect if they only publish these things when the electorate don't have a choice.
It's the same sloppy editing that brought us the mis-reported UK 42 days detention [slashdot.org] story. And the same sloppy editing that has refused to publish the stories in the firehose, saying The Lords have rejected it [bbc.co.uk].
Parent
Vote Skew (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem here is the system. Let's take a look at the ratios between the percentage of seats each party got in the election, and their percentage of the national popular vote:
Conservative
Seats: 143/308
Popular Vote: 37.63%
Ratio: 2.03 (More than twice the seats they would have obtained under a 100% proportional system.)
Liberal
Seats: 76/308
Popular Vote: 26.24%
Ratio: 0.94
BLOC Quebecois
Seats: 50/308
Popular Vote: 9.97%
Ratio: 1.63 (Interesting thing here; because voters in Quebec will vote the BLOC in much more often, they're skewed way above other parties even though they're practically running only in Quebec.)
NDP
Seats: 37/308
Popular Vote: 18.20%
Ratio: 0.66 (Screwed once again.)
Independent
Seats: 2/308
Popular Vote: 0.65
Ratio: 0.999 (Oddly proportional.)
Green
Seats: 0/308
Popular Vote: 6.80%
Ratio: 0.0 (Yeah. 6.8% of the vote, 0% of the representation. Good stuff.)
(Source: CBC.ca Election Results [www.cbc.ca])
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP [wikipedia.org] a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.
Re:Vote Skew (Score:5, Informative)
The Conservative numbers are wrong. ( 143 / 308 ) / 0.3763 = 1.23, not 2.03. The rest of your numbers seem fine, though.
Parent
Re:Vote Skew (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should the NDP or the Greens have to merge with the Liberals simply because they're small?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Vote Skew (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. That would kick ass and put Canada aright.
The problem is the NDP leadership is a bunch of whiny 5 year olds, the Liberal leadership is too interested in knifing each other in the back to care, and they're both sceptical of the greens because, unlike in the USA, the Greens are actually more right wing than the Liberals in terms of fiscal ideas. I'm surprised Harper hasn't offered to go down on May for Green support to greenwash the Conservatives.
sigh. Still, Harper faced the most inarticulate and inept Liberal candidate in decades, and wasn't able to get a majority, so that shows you how little support the conservatives actually have.
Argh. I really dig Canada, but their politics are completely fucked.
RS
Parent
Re:Vote Skew (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please elaborate on why aboriginals need guaranteed seats. Maybe we should give guaranteed seats to jews, muslims, indians, haitians, homosexual, woman, clowns, dentists, and nurses, too.
On the other hand, aboriginals already have a garanteed seat in the form of the seat for Nunavut.
Re:Vote Skew (Score:5, Informative)
MMP failed in Ontario because it was poorly explained to voters, The and the referendum question was unclear. Also it was not full MMP, but a hybrid where the province would add additional MP's on top of the ridings based on the percentage of popular vote. These MP's would be declared on a list prior to the election, however they could also run in a riding, so a party could protect ministers who were defeated in their riding, but end up sitting as an MMP member. MMP members also would not be accountable to any riding. This is a worse system the the current first past the post system.
The current parliamentary system equally helps and hurts the conservatives and the liberals at different times. During liberal majorities the Reform and PC parties would often split votes to the benefit of the liberal candidate. No system is perfect, but historically the Parliamentary system has been probably been balanced between both major parties.
Also, it should be pointed out - and that the post clearly misses, that the Conservatives have a minority government. this means they do have the most seats of any party, but all other parties still have more seats then them - this means they need the help of another party to pass legislation. If their plans are that bad, it is the responsibility of the opposition to cause the government to fall. If they choose not to, you cant solely blame the Government for its passage.
Parent
The ironic catch-22 (Score:4, Insightful)
The consequences of first-past-the-post is that the most powerful party gets even MORE power, while less powerful parties get less than they deserve (analogy of making the rich richer and the poor poorer).
The irony is that only the most powerful party at any given time would be able to change this undemocratic reality, and shift to proportional representation. But obviously, they don't want to, because that'll reduce their power. It's the opposition which always supports changing FPTP to proportional (which will increase their power). But lo and behold, as soon as the opposition becomes the primary party, they immediately go to the start of the paragraph and realize they don't want the change anymore. Now, the former power holders want to change, but they no longer have the power.
The only party who can change the system, don't want to change it, and those that want to change it, can't. This statement will hold true regardless of which party is in power.
Beautiful irony, isn't it?
Parent
That system works fine! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your system seems to be much better than the one we have in Brazil, where the results are computed for the whole state, instead of by district.
The result of a proportional voting system is that *every* special interest politician is elected. We have dozens of representatives elected by different churches, and they all vote in a block on religious issues. We have dozens of trade union representatives. We have the "ruralist bench", representatives elected on farming issues. We have representatives for individ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, we realize that fully proportional representation would have those problems as well, which is why we were looking at mixed-member proportional, which is kind of a half and half system (though there are still more in the first past the post "half" than the proportional one). I believe you still have to get some minimum percentage of votes nationwide to get any list candidates put in as well.
Re:That system works fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
The voting system we have in Brazil isn't totally proportional, but still it raises more problems than it solves. Each party must have a minimum percentage of the vote to elect representatives. The total vote for the party is computed, a candidate for a popular party needs less votes to get elected.
A sad example of how this, very complex, voting system works is that this clown got elected and got three other representatives in his party elected [wikipedia.org] when he ran as a "protest" candidate, i.e. people voted for him because they thought no one was a worthy candidate. His motto was "my name is Eneas" and his main political project was that Brazil should detonate the nuclear weapon that reportedly was developed here in the early 1980s.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. The railway workers representative will gladly vote for the project granting special tax benefits for churches in exchange for special retirement rules for railway workers. Just remember one small fact: there are no ideological differences between different special interests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem here at Slashdot is that the people don't seem to understand the principle of party-line votes.
It's true that, with only a dozen votes to gather in order to pass a bill, the Conservatives might go shopping for - forgive me - the odd maverick willing to go along with them on just that one vote.
And that might happen, but I really doubt it. The Canadian party system (and consequently the parliamentary system) is predicated on bloc voting. That's not going to
Re:Vote Skew (Score:4, Interesting)
We could have even fixed this (at least in the Ontario Legislature) if we'd voted in MMP a year ago, rather than stayed with the skewed first past the post system. Unfortunately, I don't think enough people were educated about what the new system would mean and saw it as some sort of radical change, and so voted to stay with the current system.
Note: I think my math is accurate here but feel free to correct me.
Your math might be correct but your premise is flawed. MMP and proportional representation are a disaster. I campaigned & voted against MMP. MMP and PR condemn us to permanent minority governments, with most parliamentary effort going into backroom deals to stay in power instead of governing. Governments with MMP or PR are always shaky.
You are taking away the right of the people to elect (and REMOVE) their representatives. MMP and PR demolish accountability.
Example: I live in the Trinity-Spadina riding in Toronto, where Olivia Chow (NDP) cruised to an easy victory because she is popular with the voters. If the people of Trinity-Spadina decide that they don't like Olivia Chow, if they think Olivia Chow is corrupt, incompetent, lazy, or any other reason, the people of Trinity-Spadina can organize and REMOVE Olivia Chow from office (and her extravagant $155,000 salary). The only people who can put Olivia Chow into office (and remove her) are the people of Trinity-Spadina. Olivia Chow is accountable to the voters.
On the other hand, with MMP or PR, since every party will get some share of the vote, the only determinant of whether Olivia Chow gets a cushy job with a $155,000 salary is if she keeps the NDP party bosses happy. The only people who can put Olivia Chow into office (and remove her) are the party bosses. Olivia Chow is no longer accountable to the voters.
Now, first past the post does have its problems, but MMP & PR are even worse.
If you're going to abandon first past the post, the single transferable vote system is much better: politicians still have to answer to the people.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I rather like minority governments, and I think most Canadians do.
We're classical conservatives in that sense. Our country works pretty well. The less governments can do to break it, the better.
Re:Vote Skew (Score:4, Interesting)
I moved from Canada to Denmark a few years ago, so I have a good understanding of how the two systems work. The PR system here is not in any way comparable to a minority government in Canada, because the parties are much more effective at working together. Legislation doesn't always come from the governing party, but that's no problem - as long as a sufficient number of parties support it, it's a reflection of public support as well. In effect this keeps the governing party honest without preventing them from governing effectively.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely. The system had its problems as described, but I still think it would have been better than the current one. Those problems, by the way, could be overcome by having, say, a primary-like vote on the list candidates, where you voted on them by priority. The list candidates themselves could be further subdivided into areas (like per-province) so voters wouldn't have to look at such a large list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it gave seats to people not [...] voted into power.
This is not always a bad thing by necessity. I recall a while back there was a push to change from an appointed to elected senate. I was watching an interview with one of the current senators, unfortunately her name escapes me. She was firmly against the idea of an elected senate, and her reasons were something along the lines of (paraphrased) "if we go to an elected senate, it will take less than a decade for every seat to fill up with rich white men wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. You pretty much have the same thing with your electoral colleges. Take a look at your ratios some time; there's a reason why people had such a hue and cry over Bush being elected over Gore when the popular vote didn't reflect the victory.
n00bs (Score:5, Insightful)
" Given the Conservative Party's historic disregard of public opinion"
And give Slashdot's historic disregard of non-bias, I think we're tied.
Re:n00bs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say it, but the Reform merger ruined the tories.
"Unite the Right" really amounted to a bunch of secular, principled conservatives compromising to quasi-fundamentalist American style conservative values. It got them elected, but at what cost?
Parent
The insider point of this (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA = Political Suicide in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Prentice, in some circles, is regarded to be an unusually savvy politician. However, he was given the job of keeping both Canadian citizens *and* american media conglomerates happy. He was screwed, and he knew it. He drafted a law to avoid another chorus of "Blame Canada" from the U.S., but his party never tried to ram it through the HoC like they would with a bill they actually care about. In fact, the timing of when it was tabled seems to suggest that they wanted it to be cut off by the election rather than being passed.
Now, obviously, the Conservatives didn't want this bill making them look like a bunch of Bush sycophants right when Harper was trying to distance himself from that sort of accusation. (The liberals accuse Harper of being a Bush groupie on a weekly basis. It's like clockwork.)
So... What happens now? The conservatives might plan to ram unpopular legislation through ASAP and hope it's forgotten by the next election. However, I think they realize that the embarrassment C-61 (or it's successor) is going to cause will be an ongoing thing. By passing C-61, they grant power to CRIA to embarrass them with U.S.-style frivolous lawsuits at will. If CRIA were so inclined, they could deliberately wait for the next election and then turn courtroom cowboy.
Are the conservatives dumb enough to hand a foreign interest the power to embarrass their party whenever they feel like it? I tend to doubt it. It's more likely that C-61 will be amended, diddled, massaged, and ultimately only talked about just enough to keep the "Blame Canada" shouts to a manageable level. Either that, or severely castrated into a law approaching sensibility, if such a thing is possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
whereas Conservative kind-of translates into "old-school values"
Not today's conservatives; today's conservatives are a sad shadow of what they should be, and that is fiscally conservative. Instead it really is Bush politics, and "I'll-do-like-I-want-so-back-off" way of thinking. If they were real conservatives, they would have won a majority. But they're not, sadly. I don't know what sort of kool-aid they're drinking in Calgary and Ottawa, but this is not even funny.
But of course, like you said, even the conservatives are pretty tame. Only one scandal and three outrages
Um...not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
The assessment of the Conservative gain is 100% wrong, and conclusions proceeding from it may also be flawed. The Conservatives were facing a grossly underfunded Liberal Party in historic disarray, and led by a man widely perceived to be utterly unfit to be Prime Minister. The time was so ripe to grab a majority that the Conservatives broke their own platform promise to stick with a scheduled election (the "It was a minority and we couldn't help it" dodge is a complete red herring). The New Democratic Party, which would be regarded in the US as raving loony communists, also picked up seats.
The Tories have now been told twice to cool their jets, and they won't be going back to the public any time soon unless they want their asses thoroughly kicked. Seven out of 10 Canadians either voted against them or didn't vote at all (a historic low turn-out, by the way).
I won't bore you with further details (except to note that of all the parties, the only one that actually got more total votes was the Green Party), but the bottom line is that this result is a repudiation of the Conservative Party's attempt to steal candy from a baby. If they choose to introduce legislation like this, which has historically been unpopular with Canadians, they'll be playing with fire. Most likely, they'll either let it slide under the guise of building inter-party amity, or they'll allow the legislation to be brought forward, but not make voting a matter of confidence.
Harper views this is an increased mandate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes that is more or less what happened, but just like last time, Harper will continue to do whatever he pleases and govern like he has a majority.
Given no one wants another election, we can look forward to about a year of Harper dictatorship as he pushes any legislation he feels like.
For Harper the election was win-win. He had a shot at majority, but even if he failed, he would get another year at minimum where he was untouchable and could do what he wanted all the while taunting the opposition.
Parent
C61 is worse than US laws. (Score:4, Insightful)
People seems to assume this is some sort of made in Canada fluffy bunny DMCA lite. It isn't. This is an RIAA wet dream.
People tout the lower $500 fine per file, but that is downloading, most people get busted for uploading in the USA (which most file sharing clients do) the fine for that is $20 000 per file. Which is also the fine for breaking any DRM. Say hello to bankrupting lawsuits in Canada for your kids file sharing.
It also makes "making available" a crime, where this is being challenged in the states, it will be a codified law with this bill.
It also gives the power to corporations to make anything they want law, by make EULA 100% binding. Something else that was shotdown in the USA.
Say goodbye to any semblance of fair use, or first sale doctrine type rights. They are all out the window.
Basically whatever corporations say goes and huge fines if you disagree.
Of course that this was returning was only announced days before the election so no opposition could be built up against it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile, with the US struggling to patch the holes in the fantasy banking game... er, I mean system... I'm inclined to think Canada's leaders should whore themselves out a little less to foreign interests, and a little more to local interests. Why enact more US-friendly laws, when their money has the not-so-remote possibility of going south of the peso ? Does Harper sign anti-piracy deals with Malaysian interests ? No ? Then he shouldn't sign them for US interests either.
Re:What the Hell is Wrong with Canada? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What the Hell is Wrong with Canada? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See lament for a nation
Book info (amazon)
http://www.amazon.ca/Lament-nation-defeat-Canadian-nationalism/dp/0886292573 [amazon.ca]
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lament_for_a_Nation:_The_Defeat_of_Canadian_Nationalism [wikipedia.org]
Lament for a Nation is a 1965 essay of political philosophy by Canadian philosopher George Grant. The essay examined the political fate of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government in light of its refusal to allow nuclear arms on Canadian soil, and the Liberal party's poli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vote Splitting. (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree with the others who say our Conservatives are different(I am Canadian). They share the same ideology (Pro Corporation, anti-socialism) and Harper seems to share the same mean spirited mud slinging personality as many republicans.
How they won is related to vote splitting and a weak Liberal leader. We have 1 right wing party, and 4 on the center left splitting the vote. Over 60% voted against the current government. But vote splitting gave them a government.
The green party is essentially the "Ralph
Re:Flaimbait? (Score:5, Informative)
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
I don't think you understand how Canadian politics works. Unlike in the USA, the Prime Minister is a member of the house and has direct control over the party stance. This, coupled with extremely strong party discipline (you vote with the party EVERY time or you get kicked out, ruining your career), means that the P.M. is far more powerful than the President (within the political system; not in terms of overall world power) because in a majority government, the P.M. can pass basically any law he wants, as long as it satisfies the constitution.
That's not the case though, since he only has a minority of seats. Unfortunately, if a law fails to pass and it's an important one (read: whatever they want, so basically all of them), then the government fails and we have an election. But the Liberals won't allow this because they are very weak and would likely lose more in another election. If they go to the polls, it'll be about the budget or the Afghan war, not a copyright bill. TL;DR:
The bill will pass because the opposition Liberals have too much to lose in the election that will be called if it fails. End of Story.
Parent
Re:Flaimbait? (Score:4, Informative)
where does the article say that *ALL* conservatives are would vote for this and *all* NDP, Bloc, Green and Liberals would vote against ?
Under most parliamentary systems, MP's are far, far more likely to strictly tow their party line than in, say, the United States. This is because under such a system legislation is proposed by party leaders (when they are in power) rather than through any kind of committee system. Therefore, MP's rely on their party leaders to grant earmarks to their constituents, and thus vote more or less exactly as they are told so they will be looked upon more favorably when the time comes to distribute the pork.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MPs very rarely break party lines in Canada. The Harper government especially is known for strict party discipline. Additionally, with a minority government, it's even less likely that a bill tendered by the ruling party will be voted against by that party.