Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Political Studies Fail.

Edmonton City Bus Fare for 2 students : $4.50
Admission to bookstore: Free
Putting ignorance of Canadian governance on internationally accessible video: Priceless. (1:15 - 1:27)



Yes, "Tha Flamethrower" really did say: "...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada".

Thanks for yet another "look deep inside what fuels the Nexus of Assholery", Cash Kid!

EDIT: Be sure not to miss "Thunderbolt Ross'" little tantrum in the comments here and at the "Assholery" where, aside from ceding the point by adding qualifiers to "vote for", he claims that drawing attention to his error means the espousing of the positions that 1) the G.G. could call anyone to sit as PM (convention of responsible governance says otherwise), 2) that the G.G. could call anyone irrespective of how Canadians vote for their M.P.s (convention of responsible governance says otherwise), and 3) that one pines for a return to the days where women and non-property owning men could not vote (Go Don Quixote!).

If there's one thing that predictable about the aftermath drawing attention to "The Flamethrower's" regular errors, its the hysteria, frantic strawman slaying and desperate employment of the rhetoric of assholery that will folllow.


81 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Alas, poor Audrey.

Spanked again.

Try again, Audrey. Try harder.

Audrey II said...

There really isn't any need to try harder when you continue to make it so easy, Pat. Pay a visit to your local PoliSt. department (or perhaps even a Jr. High Civics class!) and announce that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister. Maybe if you tell "spanked" loud enough, it might down out some of the laughter.


I loved how your blog post further illustrated an ignorance of Canadian governance by completely failing to address (and in at least one case, contradicting) the construct of parliamentary convention and the role it plays in British/Canadian governments. You really can't help yourself from illustrating my point, can you?

How many "votes for Prime Minister" did Stephen Harper receive in the last federal election? did you cast a ballot with Stephen Harper on it?

Fusion of powers is not a theoretical or "paper" concept, Patrick. It's a fundamental principle of our system of governance, one that makes it distinct from the systems that exist in places like the U.S.. That's why it's taught at everything from an introductory through upper level university courses on Canadian civics. This is something that doesn't evaporate by simply crying "triangles" or "spanked".

Bruce said...

Of course, Americans don't vote for their President or Vice-President either. They vote for electors pledged (but not required) to in turn vote for the candidate(s) they promised to support.

Yet I think you'd be even harder pressed to find Americans who knew who the electors they were actually voting for in 2008 were, than you'd be to find Canadians who could enumerate the candidates to be their MP in our 2008 election.

As happens worldwide, time does create a divergence between theory and practice. I'd be absolutely delighted to see real Members elected whose first loyalty was to Parliament and their constituency rather than to their party or its leader. Alas, the Chuck Cadmans of the Canadian political world are sufficiently rare as to actually be memorable by name — as are the names of the ridings that elect them as Independent members rather than a candidate pledged to slavishly take a party whip and act as a proxy for a leader.

Fun though the whole civics debate is, the reality is that many generations of Canadians have learned to see their politics as a horse race between party leaders, with their local candidates tied to that. It's a pity it is so, but there you are.

Patrick Ross said...

Sure, Audrey, Sure.

Let's overlook the fact that every single Prime Minister in Canadian history has been the leader of a political party, and that despite the fact that theoretically -- on paper -- a non-party leader could become Prime Minister, in reality this could never happen.

The only people who realistically think any such thing really could happen are fools like Audrey who seem to believe that Canada should remain slavishly mired in a 19th century-styled mode of government.

On that note, I assume Audrey won't be voting in the next election, and will be telling other women not to vote as well.

After all, Audrey, if a political antique from the 19th century -- the era, by the way of aristocratic government and not democratic governmeny -- is really what you want for Canada, one must assume that you also want everything that comes along with it.

Patrick Ross said...

And by the way, Audrey, you're a moron.

The fact that Canadians tend to vote for party leaders, and that only party leaders are invited to form the government in Canada has nothing at all to do with fusion of power.

Stupid.

Patrick Ross said...

Just for the record, folks, as Audrey is so very dishonest, and refuses to address the actual arguments people make, here is the killer app that entirely obliterates her argument:

"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and

2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and

3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be.
"

Feel free to start addressing reality rather than simply theory, Audrey.

Reality: are you familiar with it?

Balbulican said...

Purely from a branding perspective, I'd probably tell a client to rethink an invitation to look more deeply into the nexus of assholery. Mais chacun à son gout.

Patrick Ross said...

Ironically, I was once advised to market it as a porn site. Make of that what you will.

Let me ask you this, though, Balbulican, as we all know that Audrey won't sprout enough intellectual courage to address this particular point:

Wouldn't Audrey's argument hold water so much better if Canadian government had only taken place in theory, only taken place on paper, and only taken place in the 19th century?

Balbulican said...

Shrug. You want a ruling? Audrey's critique is accurate but trivial. Your attempted rebuttal is ingenious but relies way too much that eye rolling appeal to an imaginary peanut gallery you seem to be trademarking. You're both arguing on different playing fields. And the music in the video was mixed too high.

Patrick Ross said...

No, I'm afraid you don't quite have it right just yet.

Audrey's critique is accurate in terms of pure political theory, devoid of an examination of how Canadian politics has operated in reality.

That's the point.

It's when the real-world operation of the system is introduced that Audrey's critique is found to be self-servingly one-sided.

That's the killer app.

I'm more than happy to discuss all the nuances of the Canadian political system with anyone willing to discuss them openly and honestly.

But when someone is so fucking stupid that they think an understanding of one's horoscope is necessary to be a political commentator, there's only so much one can expect such an individual to comprehend.

Audrey II said...

Bruce, no such convergence of theory and practice exists here. The office of P.M does not appear on a single ballot, nor do Canadians cast votes for it. Because responsible governance relies heavily on the construct of convention, the theory is the practice, even if convention also has further implications (such as party discipline, the role of party leadership, etc...).

Patrick, once again you've committed yourself to a position and wound up getting caught making demonstrably false claims to support it. Triangles are not octagons, Canada is in a deficit, acknowledgment of adaptation is not sufficient cause for subscription to the scientific theory of evolution, and Canadians do not (despite your splutterings) vote for the office of P.M..

Let's NOT overlook that every single PM in Canadian history has been the leader of a political party. That's an important convention of Canadian Responsible Governance, and reveals your "GG could choose just anyone" nonesense for the ignorant strawman that it is. This routine of, having been caught making absurd claims, attacking an argument that no one has made is as laughable as the non-sequitur "assumptions" you've made above. Fusion of powers is one of the causes for the absence of this fictional executive ballot that Patrick has been caught asserting out of whole cloth.

Those reading this thread might note that Patrick was asked two specific questions: "How many "votes for Prime Minister" did Stephen Harper receive in the last federal election?" and "Did you cast a ballot with Stephen Harper on it?". Instead of providing the obvious answer to either, Patrick's now moving the goalposts. Of course the votes that Canadians cast in a federal election have an impact on who winds up sitting in the Prime Minister's seat. The system of governance that we have in Canada has fostered and solidified through convention that influence. The point at which this matter moves from the realm of trivial to relevant when it comes to minority governments and the issue of confidence in the house. In those situations, Patrick's false-narrative where the these magical votes (that never wind up on any ballot, that are never counted, and which never bear the title of the office of Prime minister) become the vehicle for him remaking parliament from what it is (a body where the construct of confidence is crucial) to what he wants it to be (a body where the very thing his party of choice is having difficulty with has no bearing). Patrick desperately wants to wave away through assertion an important aspect of Canadian governance because of the inconvenience it creates for his party of choice.

I freely concede (and have asserted many times) that the votes Canadians cast in a federal election have significant influence on the matter of who winds up sitting as their Prime Minister, so please take note of Patrick's choice to flog that straw stuffed shirt. That said, that's not nearly the same thing as "voting for them". The difference is not "theoretical" or "paper", nor is it "trivial" or irrelevant. There's a reason why the construct of confidence is covered fairly extensively in almost all post-secondary Canadian governance education. Don't take my word for it, though. Go down to your local PoliSt department, talk to a few Profs, and take a look at the course outlines. For something Patrick wants to assert out of existence, it sure garners a goodly lot of curriculum attention!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "You're so stupid/I win/I spank you again" bluster that characterizes these all to common efforts at damage control from "Tha Mindbender".

Patrick Ross said...

It's not damage control when there's no damage, Audrey. At this point, it's just the spanking of an anti-democratic ideologue.

"Bruce, no such convergence of theory and practice exists here. The office of P.M does not appear on a single ballot, nor do Canadians cast votes for it. Because responsible governance relies heavily on the construct of convention, the theory is the practice, even if convention also has further implications (such as party discipline, the role of party leadership, etc...)."

So apparently Audrey just wnats to regurgitate her past arguments.

Let's take Audrey back to the killer app again:

"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and

2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and

3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be."

Why is it, Audrey, that you can't dispute the simple and conclusive logic of this argument?

Simple. Because the logic of it is indisputable.

Or perhaps you just aren't familiar with the meaning of the word "indirectly". Either that, or you plan to re-define it to suit your argument.

"Let's NOT overlook that every single PM in Canadian history has been the leader of a political party. That's an important convention of Canadian Responsible Governance, and reveals your 'GG could choose just anyone' nonesense for the ignorant strawman that it is."

Ha! No, it doesn't. Not at all.

It brings one back to the most basic, and fundamental truth of the argument: the leader of each party effectively becomes a candidate for Prime Minister under the way that our system functions. It also brings us back to Ibbitson's argument: that Americans are better able to get the President they want through a system that gives them the option to choose those candidates.

Canadians don't choose the candidates for the Prime Ministership of Canada.

"This routine of, having been caught making absurd claims, attacking an argument that no one has made is as laughable as the non-sequitur 'assumptions' you've made above."

Not at all. Quite frankly, Audrey, what you want to re-define as a "non-sequitur" -- actually known as your argument -- is really the only way in which your critique here becomes defensible.

"Those reading this thread might note that Patrick was asked two specific questions: "How many "votes for Prime Minister" did Stephen Harper receive in the last federal election?" and 'Did you cast a ballot with Stephen Harper on it?'. Instead of providing the obvious answer to either, Patrick's now moving the goalposts."

Heh. Robert Peter John Day would be proud of you. But I haven't moved the goalposts at all: rather, I've rejected what you think the goalposts should be.

But, as a matter of fact, Audrey, here's the answer to your question: Stephen Harper received 5,208,796 indirect votes for the Prime Ministership of Canada. His name didn't need to appear on any ballot other than the ballot of Calgary-West, due to the basic fundamental truth that you willfully choose to ignore:

Canadians who voted for a Conservative Party candidate understood full well that should their candidate win, that candidate will be one of the MPs the Conservative Party would need to form a government.

Should enough voters make the same decision in enough ridings, the result will be that Stephen Harper's party wins the election, and he is called upon to be the Prime Minister of Canada.

Patrick Ross said...

Canadians understand this, even if Audrey doesn't.

See, what Audrey wants to do is attempt to separate the reality of how Canadians vote, why they vote, their expectations regarding the voting process, and the consequences of that vote from one detail:

Whether or not the office of Prime Minister actually appears on the ballot.

This isn't a tiny or irrelevant detail. It's the absence of this from the ballot that makes Canadians' votes for Prime Minister indirect, but no less real.

It's the fact that Audrey doesn't seem to understand the role these votes have in the process that designates the Prime Minister and government that really indicates that she has no idea of how this process words -- not on a nuts-and-bolts level, and not on the democratic/philosophical level.

See, only Audrey could muster the sheer arrogance to try to tell Canadians that, when it comes to picking the Prime Minister, their vote simply doesn't matter. And can easily be overruled by the Governor General.

That isn't democracy -- which is unsurprising, as Audrey doesn't believe in democracy -- it's aristocratic government.

As for Audrey and the notion of Parliamentary confidence, well, one needs look no further than this abject and incoherent stupidity to figure out that, well, she really has no clue what the hell it is.

The truth is, Audrey, that you lost this argument before you even began. You apparently are in desperate need of a civics lesson yourself -- not to mention a comprehensive lesson in Canadian History. At this point, the decision is entirely yours: how badly will you lose this argument?

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, and let's not forget about the whole "astrology" thing. Personally, I can't even begin to respect the opinion of a retard who thinks that horoscopes are politically relevant.

So fucking stupid.

Audrey II said...

"Why is it, Audrey, that you can't dispute the simple and conclusive logic of this argument?"

I can. I've stated quite clearly which premise it is that I disagree with and what part of the premise-to-conclusion truth retention is lost. Canadians don't vote for their P.M., even indirectly. The votes they cast for their M.P.s influence that decision, but that's not the same thing as "voting for". All you seem capable of doing in response to that is repeating variations of the same old "You're stupid, you're a moron, you can't dispute the killer app, I win, you're spanked" playground bluster.

"Or perhaps you just aren't familiar with the meaning of the word "indirectly"."

I'm quite familiar with it. Please give the time-stamp in the video where you include it. I'm also aware that there's a world of difference between "indirectly influence via convention the calling of" and "get to vote for". The former accurately depicts Canadian governance. The latter does not.

"No, it doesn't. Not at all"

And that's precisely the kind of ignorance of Responsible Governance that I spoke to. No one need take my word for it, though. Talk to a Pol St. prof regarding the role convention plays in our P.M. selection process and how that isn't just mere theory, it is practice. Hell, even the Wikepedia article on the office of Prime Minister puts lie to this "vote for" bit that you've manufactured out of thin air.

"that Americans are better able to get the President they want"

And there may be truth to that argument. But whether or not the American system is more responsive to the whims of the electorate is a matter quite different than the one of whether or not Canadians "vote for their P.M.". One might even prefer that our system of governance was more like the American one, but a preference or wish for it to be doesn't make it so, and neither does simply asserting falsehoods in the hope that repetition will make them truth.

"here's the answer to your question: Stephen Harper received 5,208,796 indirect votes for the Prime Ministership of Canada".

I didn't cast a vote for the Prime Minister of Canada, & neither did a single other Canadian citizen, something that doesn't change by simply adding the word "indirect" (something that was remiss from you video clip)to the term. Canadians votes certainly influence the PMs eventual seating, but that's not at all the same thing.

"Should enough voters make the same decision in enough ridings, the result will be that Stephen Harper's party wins the election, and he is called upon to be the Prime Minister of Canada."

I don't disagree, but there's an important transitive step that you're (deliberately?) skipping. Stephen Harper is then called (Freudian slip?) to be P.M. as a function of the confidence he is deemed to maintain in the lower house. The votes that Canadians cast to determine the party representation within that house certainly influence that "calling", but that's not "voting for", indirectly or otherwise. The awarding of the position of the P.M. is not contingent on votes, but rather confidence in the house. This distinction has brought down governments in the past where, if what you have claimed were true, it would not have happened. You're arguing in not only in ignorance of Canadian governance, but in contradiction of history.

I don't expect you to admit your error, but it is fun watching you desperately flail around in avoidance of it.

Patrick Ross said...

"I can. I've stated quite clearly which premise it is that I disagree with and what part of the premise-to-conclusion truth retention is lost. Canadians don't vote for their P.M., even indirectly."

Hmmm. And apparently, all you have to defend this with is your own say-so.

See, Audrey, it's clear that you just don't understand how an election in Canada works. Let me explain this to you: I know you'll pretend you don't understand, but it's not that hard:

When Canadians elect MPs, that MP becomes part of something we know as a "caucus". The party that elects the most MPs -- the largest Parliamentary caucus -- is said to possess a plurality of seats, and their leader is invited to become Prime Minister.

Each and every Canadian who voted for that party's local candidate has a hand in that result.

The fact is that Canadians choose their government through the election of MPs. After all, the party that emerges from the election with the largest number of seats wins. The Governor General doesn't choose each riding's MP any more than they can select any random individual to become the Prime Minister.

"The votes they cast for their M.P.s influence that decision, but that's not the same thing as "voting for". All you seem capable of doing in response to that is repeating variations of the same old "You're stupid, you're a moron, you can't dispute the killer app, I win, you're spanked" playground bluster."

Audrey, when you stop making arguments that are stupid, stop acting like a moron, and admit that you can't refute the logic of the killer app, I'll stop doing all of those things.

But your argument is stupid -- so I'm going to call you stupid.

You're acting like a moron -- so I'm going to call you a moron.

You can't refute the logic of the killer app, but won't admit it -- so I'm going to keep pointing this out.

The ball's entirely in your court. You've already lost this argument. You lost it before you started it. If you want it to end, just admit defeat.

It isn't that your admission is necessary. It's just what it will take to end this.

"I'm quite familiar with it. Please give the time-stamp in the video where you include it. I'm also aware that there's a world of difference between "indirectly influence via convention the calling of" and "get to vote for". The former accurately depicts Canadian governance. The latter does not."

Audrey, Audrey, Audrey.

Semantics isn't going to win this argument for you.

The logic of the killer app argument is indisputable. The fact that you refuse to even try is proof of that.

"And that's precisely the kind of ignorance of Responsible Governance that I spoke to. No one need take my word for it, though. Talk to a Pol St. prof regarding the role convention plays in our P.M. selection process and how that isn't just mere theory, it is practice. Hell, even the Wikepedia article on the office of Prime Minister puts lie to this "vote for" bit that you've manufactured out of thin air."

This is, apparently, an argument you're relying on poor semantics to make.

It may surprise you to learn this, Audrey, but a seven-minute video -- with six separate segments -- doesn't provide as much time to discuss all the nuances of the Canadian political system as you seem to think.

Patrick Ross said...

You seem to think that a Poli Sci prof is going to do what you're so desparate to do here -- ignore the manner in which the election of individual MPs impacts the election of Parliament, and therein the election of the government.

You seem to think that a Poli Sci prof is going to ignore the manners in which the practice of Canadian politics has changed since the 19th century.

Here's the thing you apparently don't understand, Audrey: most Poli Sci profs worth consulting about these matters aren't eager to embrace mediocrity in the interest of attacking a rival -- like you did here, and like you have on so many other topics.

Any Poli Sci prof worth consulting on this matter will have a great deal to say about the influence that each and every vote has on the shape of Parliament, and therein who becomes Prime Minister.

Unlike yourself, any Poli Sci prof worth consulting isn't going to insist on telling only the part of the process that supports their argument.

That's why you could never make it as one.

(That, and the fact that you don't know what an academic thesis is.)

"And there may be truth to that argument. But whether or not the American system is more responsive to the whims of the electorate is a matter quite different than the one of whether or not Canadians "vote for their P.M.". One might even prefer that our system of governance was more like the American one, but a preference or wish for it to be doesn't make it so, and neither does simply asserting falsehoods in the hope that repetition will make them truth."

Well, an interesting difference is that, considering that every state in the United States has the same number of Senators, residents of small states have a disproportionately valuable vote in term of directly electing the President.

Whereas in Canada, every voter's ballot is equally valuable in indirectly electing the Prime Minister.

"I didn't cast a vote for the Prime Minister of Canada, & neither did a single other Canadian citizen, something that doesn't change by simply adding the word "indirect" (something that was remiss from you video clip)to the term. Canadians votes certainly influence the PMs eventual seating, but that's not at all the same thing."

I know you'd like a lot of people to think that. But seeing as how you won't even attempt to dispute the logic of the killer app argument, it's evident that you know it's true.

Let's face it, Audrey. At this point this argument, to you, is about nothing but avoiding that painful admission of defeat.

Unfortuantely for you, your admission isn't necessary.

"I don't disagree, but there's an important transitive step that you're (deliberately?) skipping. Stephen Harper is then called (Freudian slip?) to be P.M. as a function of the confidence he is deemed to maintain in the lower house. The votes that Canadians cast to determine the party representation within that house certainly influence that "calling", but that's not "voting for", indirectly or otherwise. The awarding of the position of the P.M. is not contingent on votes, but rather confidence in the house. This distinction has brought down governments in the past where, if what you have claimed were true, it would not have happened. You're arguing in not only in ignorance of Canadian governance, but in contradiction of history."

Wrong.

The Prime Minister is designated, and is then expected to either gain or maintain the confidence of the House.

Even in the case of the 1925 Liberal/Progressive coalition, there is still the matter of William Lyon Mackenzie King declining to resign as Prime Minister following his Party's defeat in the election.

The Governor General of the day never had the option of appointing Aurthur Meighen as the Prime Minister. Otherwise, he almost certainly would have.

Patrick Ross said...

The most interesting thing about the King/Byng affair, as it is called, is that it clearly set a precedent in Canadian politics that the proper course of action following a government defeat in the House of Commons is to hold an election -- even if the government previously resorted to dubious means to retain power, and even if another party can potentially gain and maintain the confidence of the House.

This, by the way, is far more than could be realistically be said of Stephane Dion's coalition plot. Not only did that plot require him to mortgage the government of Canada to separatists -- who could choose to renege on that deal at any time it benefitted them, but it also required Dion and Layton to conceal from Canadians the terms of the secret deal they struck with the Bloc Quebecois.

There are, of course, means by which a leader other than that of the largest individual caucus could legitimately be called to be Prime Minister (by the Governor General, you twit), and that is under an electoral coalition, wherein Canadians are duly informed about the coalition arrangement before hand, giving Canadians to evaluate that coalition as a potential government, and that coalition's leader as a potential Prime Minister.

Even then, Canadians would still be indirectly voting for that party's leader through their vote for their local representatives.

But all of this, by the way, simply pales next to the anti-democratic nature of your argument: the suggestion that Canadians have no right -- via direct or indirect voting -- to decide their government.

Your readers and cohorts may be willing to lap that up out of intellectual slavishness. But that would be a hard argument for you to make to the rest of Canada -- something I wouldn't mind seeing it.

See, you arrogantly smirk because you imagine that I would be laughed out of a room of poli sci profs if I were to suggest that Canadians vote for their Prime Minister -- even if only indirectly. Unfortuantely for you, this wouldn't happen. At worst, some of them may disagree with my interpretation, but would at least offer a counter-argument based on semantics.

Personally, I'd like to see you explain to 30,000,000 Canadians that they have no right to pick their Prime Minister. I wonder what would happen then? I suspect you'd be laughed out of the country, and the country would be infinitely better off for it.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmm. "Rather, offer a counter-argument based on more than semantics", rather.

Balbulican said...

You sure are using up a lot of pixels and insults to avoid saying what an adult would have said immediately, Patrick. Next time, try: "Poor wording on my part. Let me clarify." You'll save us all a lot of time, and avoid looking like like a poli-sci sophomore with a terminal case of last-worditis.

Patrick Ross said...

As I recall, Balbulican, you're one of numerous left-wingers who makes a habit of trying to re-write the dictionary to suit his arguments.

If you don't mind, I'll wait to hear something like that from someone with some credibility.

Beyond that, it isn't really the matter at hand here. Apparently, Audrey seems to think she can be wrong and still nitpick at other people.

Like so many things, she seems to think she can have it both ways. Like anything, she can't.

Balbulican said...

My dear Patrick, I yield to none in my admiration for the profound wisdom of students who haven't actually done anything yet. But you'll forgive me if I remain indifferent to an assessment of my "credibility" from a blogger whose only faithful correspondent appears to be Mahmoud.

Patrick Ross said...

Fair enough. I mean, I don't pretend that I've done enough that I should be allowed to unilaterally re-define the meaning of any word I feel like.

But other than that, meh.

Patrick Ross said...

What I find truly amusing about this particular post at this point is Audrey's "so what if I lost the argument? I can be wrong and still try to nitpick" theorem.

You keep telling yourself that, Audrey.

You know, when most people live in the past they try not to make that past the 19th century.

Audrey II said...

"Audrey's "so what if I lost the argument? I can be wrong and still try to nitpick" theorem."

Your ability to summarize others' positions is again as well-honed as your deductive reasoning and reading comprehension.

I never suggested that I was wrong, nor that I was nitpicking. In fact, I've consistently said the exact opposite: Your assertion regarding voting is demonstrably false and (even after the post facto insertion of a qualifier) ignorant of important aspects of Canadian governance. This isn't a "nitpick" by any means, as those familiar with political studies will recognize the importance of parliamentary confidence that your falsehood attempts to wishfully-assert away. Parliamentary Confidence is an important check on executive power, which is all the more relevant in a system of government such as ours where the legislative and executive branches are fused. That's why the construct is covered in most Canadian Civics courses in such detail, and why your "vote for" fantasy is not only false, but dangerous.

No one's suggested a return to the 19th century any more than than an acknowldgement of civil law is a desire to turn back the clock centuries. By all means continue tilting at that windmill, as it just makes you look all the more desperate for anything to avoid dealing with the falsehood of your original claim. The nice thing about Responsible Governance and its reliance on convention is that it was designed to be adaptable and non-conservative. There are certainly arguments to be made about the virtues of our system and what changes to our system of government might be beneficial, but those discussions don't start with simply asserting a form of government that doesn't exist or denying the one that does.

Do keep those ruby-slipper heels clicking together, Dorothy! Maybe you can convince yourself this fantasy system of governance of yours actually exists in Canada despite easily accessible encyclopedic resources contradicting your position and supporting mine. In the mean time, thanks for keeping the comedy alive!

Bruce said...

Audrey, I would never dispute the fact that the name of a current or potential Prime Minister never exists on a ballot anywhere other than in the riding she or he chooses to stand as a candidate for Parliament in.

That doesn't change, however, that in our system, where we each get one ballot naming candidates duly nominated in our riding, some of which also bear a party affiliation, the practice of most of those who go to vote is to cast their ballot based on that affiliation as opposed to (as do I) the best available candidate to be my Member of Parliament — and that for most of those that vote for a party, they are doing so because of its leader.

In other words, how we act is not how our system is designed.

Patrick Ross said...

Jesus, Bruce. Audrey's never going to figure this out, and she's never going to listen to anyone who knows.

She's intent on omitting the system's function from the system's design.

You can't talk sense to her. All you can do is treat her with the disrespect she deserves.

(Audrey, what does your horoscope tell you about that, o astrology master?)

Audrey II said...

Bruce,

I completely agree that many Canadians vote with the idea in mind of contributing to a particular party leader being seated as P.M.. My point is that if we're not honest about how those votes they cast influence that eventual decision, it creates (as Patrick has repeatedly illustrated both on this blog and elsewhere) false expectations about the extent of influence those votes intentionally have been designed to have. The insulation that indirect responsibility creates is something that was fostered for some very good reasons, and agree with those reasons or not, none of these constructs vanish by denying the reality of the system we have or by asserting a figment of one's imagination in their place (IMHO).

Patrick Ross said...

You know, a very intelligent man once came up with a scientific theory that he wanted to be used to provide plentiful energy for mankind.

Instead, it was used to create the most destructive weapons the world has ever known.

Design does not dictate function.

Especially not when that design is implemented in the 19th century, although conceptualized centuries before that, then has to be adapted to the passage from the 19th-century era of aristocratic government to the 20th- and 21st-century era of democratic government.

Especially not when the state in which that design is implemented passes from being the Dominion of a now-foreign country to being a sovereign state.

I know this. Bruce knows this. The only person here who doesn't understand this is Audrey.

Ironically, it's Audrey that isn't being honest about the influence the votes Canadians cast have on the final results of an election.

The fact that she won't even make an attempt to refute the killer app argument is proof of this.

Does anyone else find that to be hilarious?

Audrey lost this argument before she'd even started it. The decision has been entirely hers as to how badly she wants to lose it, and apparently she's decided to lose very badly.

Sparky said...

I love how Patrick can't write about 'coalition gov't' without some sort of venomous barb even though it's completely 'constitutional'--his own party floated the idea--even including those 'separatists'...
As for the rest, Patrick needs to go back and take polisci 101 again--'people's intent' does not give Patrick legal or constitutional coverage on his wrongness--If my intent for the next election is to vote for the best person for my riding (as is my usual intent anyway), that could possibly go against who I think would be the best PM. Me voting in my riding for the guy I want there does not immediately equal my support for his party's leader.
Again, Patrick believes that his belief system should be pushed across all Canadians--a vote for MP is a vote for who you want to be prime minister.
As usual, Patrick fails to consider any other POV--is what happens when one is so thoroughly ensconsed in a make-believe world view and he'll go on for 100+ posts to push that wv on everyone else.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Well, I guess if Audrey's going to lose, her loyal lapdog is going to rush into that toilet with her, isn't he?

Poor, poor, Sparkles. Looks like he got spanked preemptively.

Sparky said...

Wow, thanks for refuting the points, Patrick. Oh wait, as usual, you didn't.
Added to the polisci 101 point that you don't vote for PM in Canada--constitutionally, anyway (again, Patrick wants 'intent' to matter here, but alas, Patrick's intentions have always been suspect--he being so thoroughly ensconsed in his own perceived rightness that he can never discern the truth of any matter...)
I reember a few elections 20+ years ago in which the ballots just had the names of the people running in the riding and no listed party affiliation--the ballot didn't contain any party information.
Dunno what happened to that idea...
Matters not, however.
Polisci 101--when a citizen in Canada goes to vote, they vote for their member of parliament. That's it. They don't vote for PM or Party.
Intentions are not lawfully binding, Patrick.
And until you can show a ballot that has 'who do you want to be PM', your triangles will remain triangles.
And since we're so deep in this debate about constitionality, it's the party that 'selects' it's leader--not through a 'peoples election'. This point has been made many times to Patrick, but he won't address it. As well, any minority gov't can be constitutionally replaced with a coalition of the other parties with the leader being selected by whichever means the coalition chooses.
But again, Patrick won't address that. See, he's stated that "...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada" and, come hell or high water, come truth or reality, he's manning his guns dammit!!! We're all wrong. Canada's parliamentary procedures are all wrong. History is all wrong, because Patrick said so.
Well, have at it, Patrick.

Audrey II said...

That's precisely it, Sparky.

I think Pat knows that his original comment was wrong. I think Pat realizes that there are no "people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada", despite his wishes for this to be the case. This is why he's now retreated to the position of "indirect voting". The problem for Pat (besides the predictable shift of goal posts and his all-too-predictable hysterical show spats with strawmen) is that there are still significant differences between "indirect voting" and "influencing via the conventions of responsible governance". He's trying so hard to avoid admitting error that he's avoiding addressing the problems with his equivocation in favour of "You're stupid, you're a moron" playground rhetoric.

No one is denying that Canadians, though their elections of MPs, exercise a degree of influence over the seating of a PM. That's been stated over and over again, yet witness Pat's multiple desperate efforts to slay that straw-stuffed shirt.

Pat's wishes != reality and his claims don't change the reality of the system of governance that we have. Pointing out that descriptive truth isn't a pining for a return to a situation where women were not able to vote in the least. On the contrary, it's an acknowledgment of a system of governance that was intentionally designed to be flexible enough that things like the enfranchisement of women are possible.

Pat's trying desperately to grasp for distractions from the falsehood of his original claim. It's what he does. We watched him do it with the triangles/octagons embarrassment, we watched him do it with the "There will be no deficit" bit, we watched him do it on an widely read science blog over evolution, and we're watching him do it again here. He's gone off half-cocked, regurgitating the party line, and has ended up looking foolish in his post-facto scrambling to square reality with his ridiculous claims.

Two posts on his own blog, umpteen replies here... The question now is how long will he keep the circus act going for, how many declarations of "victory" will he make, and who does he really think he's convincing with his show?

Audrey II said...

Pat, no one is arguing that design dictates function.

No one is arguing for a return to a situation where women were not allowed to vote.

No one is arguing that there aren't comparative evaluations between our system of governance and those of others to be made.

No one is arguing that many Canadians cast their federal election votes with the intent of influencing the decision on the seating of the P.M..

You can continue slaying these strawmen and declaring victory all you want, but it won't change the fact that you made a demonstrably false claim regarding Canadian Governance. You might wish that claim to be truth, but if reality were a function of Patrick Ross' wishes, primary school geometry would need to be re-taught, Canada would magically not be in deficit, and Kent Hovind would be an evolutionary scientist.

Keep clicking those ruby heels, though. The longer you can keep this circus-show of yours going, the better!

Patrick Ross said...

Thanks for providing some points worthy of refutal, Sparkles.

Oh, wait. I forgot. As always, you didn't.

Audrey, your entire argument to date has been grounded exclusively in design, to the extent that you won't even debate function. The fact that the design in question was implemented in the 19th century, and formulated centuries before that, and has had to make a transition from one era of government to another, seems to have little impact on you.

Unfortunately, this is what the rest of us know as "reality".

You can keep falling back on the same core group of sycophants that certain other pitiful ideologues rely on, but at the end of the day, the people with minds of their own have clearly indicated that they disagree with you: that the complex nauances of Canadian politics aren't adequately described by a theory, on paper, formalized nearly 150 years ago, and formulated long before that.

Face it, Audrey. It's over.

My objective was to get people with minds of their own weighing in against you. That happened. All you have backing you are the same mindless twits who always do, and always will, because they can't bear the idea of thinking for themselves.

They weighed in against you because my description of how Canadian politics functions reflects how it does in real life, whereas yours only describes the theory as it appears on paper.

I win. You lose. It's over. Cope with it.

Sparky said...

Patrick defines a 'win' as "people in Canada vote for PM"--is that right, Patrick? Is this what you're basing your 'win' on??

Let's be very crystal clear for all posterity, Patrick--you've taken onus with Audrey's blog post quoting you--
"...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada".
Your words, Patrick. And through this thread you've never denied stating those words--Your belief is that when Canadians vote, we vote for PM.

Crystal clear, Patrick--no obfuscations, no wiggling, no strawmen, no ad hominems--Canadian Politics 101 by Patrick Ross--when we vote, we vote for PM.

Yes or no.

C'mon Patrick, try posting one coherent thought without resorting to your usual shenanigans...

Sparky said...

I also like how Patrick throws around high falutin' statements like, "Audrey, your entire argument to date has been grounded exclusively in design, to the extent that you won't even debate function. The fact that the design in question was implemented in the 19th century, and formulated centuries before that, and has had to make a transition from one era of government to another, seems to have little impact on you." when he hasn't rebutted any of these supposed 'functions' that others here have posited that contradict his point.
'Cause to do so would call into question his basis for his 'win'. Patrick focuses on 'intent' or 'function'. He states that the current 'function', or 'how things work now' in the Canadian electoral process is that we, as voting citizens, in the end, vote for PM. That's the 'function' of voting, the 'function' of the eletoral process'...
Did Patrick survey all the voters in the last federal election to determine their 'intent' when they voted? Did all Canadain voters in the last federal election 'intend' their vote to elect a PM?
I dunno. After hearing people talk about politics for most of my life, I find that some people vote for a party, no matter who's leading the party--it's 'their party'. So those people aren't voting for PM--that matters not to them.
My intention when I vote is to vote for whom I think is the best person for my riding--the person that has the greatest ability to affect the changes that I want in my riding. It doesn't matter what party he or she belongs to. Moreover, there have been certain votes in the past where the guy I wanted locally didn't belong to the party I wanted to run the country. In those instances, I definitly didn't want my guy's leader to be PM.
So where does 'intent' get ya?
As usual, nowhere.
Patrick scoffs at the '19th century' design of our parliamentary system. I will absolutely concede that systems designed over a century ago often need to be updated/revamped as time marches on. However, the 'design' that Patrick so easily dismisses is, at the end of the day, the constitutional and legal framework for our electoral process. There's no 'intent' or 'function' in the electoral process.
And nowhere in that electoral design an item that states that Canadain voters vote for PM.
Patrick lost. Either through a misstatement or wilful ignorance. It's astouonding how we're right back here again, telling Patrick that the Earth is round, the sun comes up in the east, that canadian voters vote for their local MP...
God, if this is going to turn into another 100+ comment thread which shows how obtuse and idiotic Patrick is, sign me up.
Or, Patrick, you could jsut state that you made a misstatement and that you know that legally and constitutionally voters vote for their local member of parliament, and that some people intend their vote to be for their party of choice, but that's not covered constitutionally in the electoral process, and that, if that party is elected, the leader of that party is appointed PM by the GG.
Had you done this at the outset, life would have gone on. But no, you had to be you--again.
Go on chasing your triangles Patrick. Sooner or later there will be a time when you can't avoid saying, "I'm wrong"

Audrey II said...

"Audrey, your entire argument to date has been grounded exclusively in design..."

Readers here are perfectly capable of scrolling up and noting where I've addressed the design/function issue multiple times, including pointing out the reductio "function" implications of your non-existent ballots and the disconnect that has with Canadian history. Your above assertion raises the issue of whether reading comprehension or intenentional deception are at play.

"The fact that the design in question was implemented in the 19th century, and formulated centuries before that, and has had to make a transition from one era of government to another, seems to have little impact on you."

On the contrary, I think it the adaptability that Responsible Governance has had in comparison to many of its counterparts is a virtue, and I've stated as much at least once above. Again, are you unable to comprehend what you read, or do you intentionally misrepresent it?

"You can keep falling back on the same core group of sycophants..."

I've not once appealed to popularity here. You, on the other hand, have.

"Face it, Audrey. It's over."

Yet you keep posting about it and replying. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

"My objective was to get people with minds of their own weighing in against you. That happened."

Where? Surely you're not referring to Bruce and my discussion as your "win"?

"I win. You lose. It's over. Cope with it."

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but I'm not likely to lose much sleep over either your original foolishness or your frantic efforts at damage control. You keep saying that you've "won". I'm happy to with the arguments being evaluated on their merits. I think that contrast alone speaks for itself.

Patrick Ross said...

I agree Audrey. Readers here are perfectly capable of scrolling up and seeing how you addressed the issue of design vs function -- and addressed it extremely poorly.

After all, seeing as how you can't understand -- or simply won't admit -- the function of a citizens' vote in indirectly electing the Prime Minister and government, it simply demonstrates taht you aren't willing to discuss this matter in good faith.

It makes me wonder if you legitimately believe that a citizens' vote has no part in electing a Prime Minister and government, or if you're simply falling back on your old practice of saying absolutely anything -- no matter how un- or half-truthful -- to eke out something you and the sycophantic twits who tend to populate this toilet can pretend is a victory.

In conclusion, Audrey, there has to be damage for there to be a necessity for "damage control". Perhaps you and the mindless sycophants (hi, Sparkles!) will all agree on the alleged brilliance of your argument. Those of us with minds of our own (s'up, Bruce) recognize it for the thin gruel that it is.

When you're ready to join the rest of Canada in a modern understanding of how our political system works, please do give a call. In the mean time, you need to simply accept defeat and move on.

In the meantime, my objective has been met. Therefore I win.

For the love of God, don't make me sit you down and explain this to you, o astrology master.

Sparky said...

Good Faith?????
This coming from Patrick???
OMG!
THis was then--
Patrick states, "...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada"
This is now--
" the function of a citizens' vote in indirectly electing the Prime Minister and government, it simply demonstrates taht you aren't willing to discuss this matter in good faith"
Two completely different ideas and Patrick has the balls to accuse someone else of not arguing in 'good faith'??
Moreover, Patrick's second point--indirectly electing PM--does not take into account all the voters who voted for 'the other guy'.
Or, probably in Patrick's little world--these voters contributed to the election of PM by losing...
Oh wait, that doesn't work, either. 'cause I voted for my guy who just happens to belong to the NDP party and he won, yet his leader isn't PM...
So where's Patricks point again? Oh right, he doesn't have one.
We don't vote for PM--not directly or indirectly. We vote for a member of parliament. The end. I've voted numerous times and not one ballot had a vote for PM. Not one, Patrick. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. Intent is not legally or constitutionally binding. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. The person who becomes PM is appointed by the GG. you know that, I know that, and everyone here knows that.
Why are you still even bothering to try and eek out a 'win' here? You already know you're wrong. You already know you misspoke. You've tried to 'clear up' your poor choice of words by stating 'my intent was...'. Well, again, intent isn't reality.
This 'intent' or 'indirect' is Patricks way of gleaning a 'win' from his misstatement.
Poor little Patrick--still chasing those triangles...

Patrick Ross said...

So it's back to the "weak semantics" method of arguing again. Yawn.

Give it a rest, Sparkles. I won. You lost. It's over.

Sparky said...

And let's just dispense with Patrick's 'killer app'
Quoth the moron--
"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and

2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and

3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be."

Feel free to start addressing reality rather than simply theory, Audrey.
"
Can anyone see the logical fallacy in that?
Well, point 1 is pretty much a 'sun rises in the east' idea--because of our multi-party system, there hasn't been a single election that had 100 percent of the seats going to 1 party. Ever. Making it sound like this is a revelation just goes to point out Patrick idiocy.
Point 3--"As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada" directly contradicts Patrick's 'canadians vote for PM', and he just stated so right here, but that's not the most interesting part...
Yes, now we have point 2--it's the "the whole of the blogosphere" crap that Patrick always tries to ply--"As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind"
Canadians tend to cast their vote.
See, here's Patricks disingenuous nature shinign through. See the 'wiggle word' there--"tend"? This means that, whereas many Canadians actually do "cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind", there are also those that don't.
Right there in Patrick's own point--there are Canadians that don't cast their vote for party or PM.
So let's take Patrick's whole point and make it into an equation

Point 1 + Point 2 + Point 3 = Irrefutable conclusion
"Plurality of parties + Vote for their party/PM + winning party leader becomes PM = Canadians vote for PM (directly, indirectly, whatever)...

Well, point 1 is true (though completely obvious) and point 3 is also true (obvious and also refutes Patricks 'win') but point 2--dammit! There's that 'tends' thing to contend with. It maybe true for many Canadians, but, as even stated explicitly by Patrick, is not true for otehr Canadians.
Therefore, Patricks own 'indisputable conclusion' derived from these points is, well, disputable. Canadians don't vote for PM. Some Canadians may want their vote for their local MP to reflect who they want to be PM, but that's really pretty much constitutionally and legally irrelevant. I may want Patrick to grow up and admit he's wrong. Well, we don't always get what we want.
Keep going Patrick.

Sparky said...

Patrick whines--
"So it's back to the "weak semantics" method of arguing again. Yawn.

Give it a rest, Sparkles. I won. You lost. It's over.
"
It must be nice to live in your own little world, Patrick.
Out here in reality, your ass was handed to you yet again. The proper way of dealing with this is to say, "Hey, I misspoke. I was wrong. Canadians do not, in fact, vote for PM. My point, if you allow me to state it correctly, is as follows..."
At which point you can actually make your correct point and be done with it. As it is, you still haven't and all this obfuscatings and 'I win, you lose' yippage is just that--yippage.
You're wrong. You're wrong in the video, your 'killer app' is wrong, and every comment here in which you obfuscate, throw insults, and declare 'I win' continues to show just how wrong you are. Deal with it as you choose
Just for once man up and admit it. Surprise us... just once.

Patrick Ross said...

"there hasn't been a single election that had 100 percent of the seats going to 1 party. Ever."

New Brunswick. 1987.

Seeing as how it's obvious that Sparkles is arguing from such a severe disadvantage -- in terms of political theory, in terms of political reality, and in terms of political history -- I'm basically going to let him off the hook now.

I fully invite him to come back and see me when he grows a mind of his own. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Sparky said...

I'd love to live in Patricks little world--
"I'm sorry officer, I know I was speeding but Canadians tend to obey the speed limit--no need for a ticket"

Sparky said...

Oh for chrissakes--if you want to bring the provinces into the discussion by all means you disingenous hack.
So there--conceded--In provincial history there has been elections that have had 100 percent of the seats go to 1 party. Since this discussion is about 'voting for PM' and you brought up provincial elections to make your point, are you saying that my provincial vote goes to voting for a PM?
Well, if that's what your saying--have at it.
I fully invite Patrick to come back and grow a pair and admit he was wrong. But I doubt that will happen.

Sparky said...

I was trying to recall if the Premier in New Brunswick in 1987 was asked by the GG to be PM? I mean, according to Patricks own claim, "only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada". Patrick used New Brunswick 1987 to refute one of my points, therefore it must be germane to the discussion on Federal politics that we're having here. I don't quite recall if Frank McKenna was appointed PM at the time for I was too busy worrying about what Brian Mulroney was doing to Canada... though to be said now, I'd take the 'heady' days of BM over the PM we currently have

Patrick Ross said...

Well, considering that the provinces use the same electoral system as the federal government -- although this hasn't always been the case -- it's entirely valid.

Personally, though, I kind of wish Audrey were here right now. She spends so much time disingenuously complaining about "Straw man arguments", that it's only fair that she see a real, honest-to-God strawman agument taken up by her loyal dog.

God, Sparky. How badly do you want to lose this argument?

Seeing as how you have no prospects of victory -- having already lost numerous times over -- you'd better make this decision soon.

Sparky said...

Well, considering that the one point of mine you attempted to refute lead to yet another 'Patrick lost' ass handing, I'm good with however you want to continue.
Seeing as how you can't deal with reality or admit you're wrong (ever, so it seems), you do whatever makes you happy in your own little world, Patrick.
"Well, considering that the provinces use the same electoral system as the federal government -- although this hasn't always been the case -- it's entirely valid."
Provincial elections are valid in a discussion about how a PM gets appointed? Yeah, if you wish it, it's so.
Since the entire comment thread until that point was regarding federal elections, I'll absolutely throw myself on the sword to appease your idiocy and state, for the record, I should have specified federal elections.
So, for the obtuse people out there who may, or did, interpret my point as including provicial elections, I'm sorry.
There. Now where are we. Oh right--my points stand unrefuted--I don't have to revise or rewrite them, or move goalposts or whatever. Patricks ass is still handed to him and his declarative statement '...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada' is still constitutionally wrong, his 'killer app' is still wrong, and, well, the triangles are still wrong... (just throwing that in as yet another 'hollow victory' that Patrick never admitted to)

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.

Provincial elections are valid in this discussion because provincial governments and provincial Premiers are appointed in the same way.

This must be quite the revelation for you.

I suggest you enroll in a Poli Sci 101 course. And if you manage to pass the introductory course -- and given this last little nugget of stupidity from you, I sincerely doubt you could -- you could think about enrolling in 200-, 300- or 400-level courses wherein you can move beyond the pure theoretical basis of Canadian government explore the nuances of Canadian politics, as it actually functions, more deeply.

In the meantime, I suggest you learn to suffer defeat more gracefully.

I win. You lose. You should have learned to cope with that by now.

Sparky said...

Of course this demonstrates yet another method that Patrick uses to achieve a 'win'--he 'muddies the waters'.
He knew what we were talking about, everyone else knew what we were talking about, but he deliberately throws these disingenuous points out there...
Well, even after my apology and clarification above, let's go back to the scorecard and look at what actually happened--
Patrick states--
"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government
Canadians--see, the discussion thus far has been about Prime ministers, federal elections, and Canadians...
I say--
there hasn't been a single election that had 100 percent of the seats going to 1 party. Ever.
Stated factual claim that was in direct response to Patrick's point regarding Canadian Government. Not 'Governments'--inferring the inclusion of the provinces--'Government'--federal only.
Patrick muddies the water by bringing Provincial history into the mix.
This is his disingenuous nature. Patrick can't go a post without using one of his 'tricks' in order to eek out a 'win'.
Is his way.

Sparky said...

Patrick the obtuse moron goes on to further prove he's talking out of both sides of his ass by stating--"Provincial elections are valid in this discussion because provincial governments and provincial Premiers are appointed in the same way."

What's that Patrick? Premieres are appointed? And that's the same way it's done on the federal level?? PM's are appointed??

Is that what you are, indeed, stating now?? That's a far cry from ""...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada"
And since the rest of us have stated numerous times from the beginning of this conversation that PM's are appointed--not voted for, and you are at last dawning to this realization, it takes alotta damn gall to tell us it's 'us' that needs a poli sci 101 course.

Patrick Ross said...

There's nothing muddy about these waters, Sparkles.

New Brunswick uses the same electoral system provincially that the country uses federally.

If anything, this is simply another example of one of your scant supply of debating tactics: even when you're wrong, you somehow have to be right.

You said that no election in Canada has ever produced a complete sweep. You punctuated it with the word "ever". You were wrong.

If you don't understand how provincial elections are relevant in a discussion of the Canadian political system, you need to go take an introductory political science course.

It will do you some good.

In the meantime, you need to accept defeat, and accept it now. Your acceptance changes nothing about your defeat, but at least it will impart some dignity.

Audrey II said...

Advising others to enroll in Political Studies classes after not only asserting that there are people that Canadians get to vote for for PM, but also attempting to wish out of existence an important check that Parliamentary Confidence deliberately (and in function) places on the executive... now it's not only political ignorance that on display, but that all-too-familiar lack of self-awareness that so often follows the former as well.

Octagons are triangles! Harper will not run a deficit! Kent Hovind can't be a creationist! Canadians really do elect their P.M.!

Keep making good use of that rope, "Thunderbolt". You never fail to disappoint.

Patrick Ross said...

Despite Sparky's weak attempt at refuting the killer app, Audrey, its still irrefutable.

(Sparky may be surprised to learn that he alone doesn't constitute the majority of Canadians -- but it would explain a lot if he thought he did).

The people who can think for themselves weighed in Audrey. We weighed in against you. The people who can't think for themselves weighed in as well. Predictably, they weighed in on your side.

Not that this means much, Audrey. I could say almost anything and Sparky would try to argue against it. I could say "Canada has a Prime Minister and the United States has a President," and Sparky would argue that the United States has a Prime Minister and Canada has a President.

He's a moron. These, sadly, are the kinds of things that morons do. And seeing as how you insist on nit-picking other people while being wrong about what you're attempting to nit-pick, I'm afraid that goes triple for you.

Sparky said...

Wow. Patrick fails to grasp even the easiest of points. In a discussion regarding Federal politics and Prime Ministers--a discussion, mind you, in which Patrick has stated numerous times that this is what the discussion is about, it's usually a pretty good bet that points made during the discussion will be in reference to Federal Politics and PM's. And even when the point is clarified so the very obtuse Patrick can try to grasp it, he still whines.
Moreover, if Patrick wants to open up the discussion to other systems beyond our federal political system, then I'm game.
If, as Patrick suggests, the 'intent' is greater than what's actually written--that 'function' is paramount to the 'design'--then what happens when there's an 'electoral crisis'?
Well, we don't need to look that far into history and bring up the 2000 election in our neighbours to the south.
They had an electoral crisis in that Al Gore had the greater popular vote than GWB, yet had less electoral college votes. Forgetting all the other stuff with hanging chads and voter recount and the like, their constitutional crisis--what made it to the supreme court--was in regards to Al having more 'people' votes than GWB.
What did the supreme court do? Did they look at 'function'? Did they look at 'intent'? I mean, historically, 'the winning party' had the popular vote--but not in this case.
The US Supreme Court went to the constitution--what was written (and as if our '19th century' one is considered archaic by PR, I can't imagine what he thinks about something written before that century even started...)
And GWB was 'appointed' as president'cause he had the electoral college votes. The intent was clear--winning through the electoral college tends to mean you also won the popular vote--not this time. The 'tends to' didn't matter. What mattered was what was written.
Should we find ourselves in an electoral crisis, what would our suporeme court or government do? would they make their decisions based on 'intent'? on 'function'? No--the 'tends' won't matter in a crisis.
In order to continue the ideas and ideals of 'good government' they would have to go back to that 'easily dismissed by Patrick' piece of paper and see what it has to say and make a ruling based on that. Design trumps function when it matters--when the issue is critical. It doesn't matter how people have 'done it before', it matters what's actually written down.
But Patrick's having none of that. No, our 'consitution' is irrelevant--it's what people do with it now, stupid!
Yeah, like that'll pass political muster.
Keep chasing your triangles Patrick. Your 'pm gets votes' is wrong, your 'killer app' is wrong, your provincial inclusion was wrong, and, well, you're just wrong.
Admit it and your life'll be better for it

Sparky said...

In this very thread, Bruce stated the same as I. Moreover, Patrick, you have to stop dismissing points based on your say-so.
Your own statements prove you wrong--you used the word 'tend'. Not me, not Audrey--you.
Canadians tend to vote for parties.
That means some canadians do and some don't. That's irrefutable--by your words it's irrefutable.
Therefore you can't say, by your very own words, that Canadians vote for PM.
You also state that PM's are appointed--your words--This contradicts your claim that 'canadians vove for PM'.
You are ass-kicked by your own words.
For the love of everything good and right, just admit it. You'll feel better.
All this obfuscation and disingenuity can't be good for you. You are wrong (again).

Sparky said...

"Not that this means much, Audrey. I could say almost anything and Sparky would try to argue against it. I could say "Canada has a Prime Minister and the United States has a President," and Sparky would argue that the United States has a Prime Minister and Canada has a President"
Patrick, get over yourself.
I point out when you're wrong. Because it happens somewhat frequently, you tend to notice me pointing out you're wrong.
I've also posted at your very own nexus stating that I've appreciated this post or that post and had a few plesant discussions regarding same in your very own comment threads.
This continuing whining about being told you're wrong when you're, well, wrong is childish.
Now, wanna refute points, or better yet, admit you're wrong, or do you want me to call the waambulance for ya?

Bruce Stewart said...

The most interesting thing about the tendency of Canadians to have a party leader in mind ("vote for x to be PM") when actually voting for a local candidate ("vote for z who is associated with P, led by x whom I want for PM") [that's a mouthful] is ... they're not voting for coalitions (unless, of course, x was campaigning on governing in coalition with parties Q and R, and adding their leaders b & g to the cabinet, etc.).

I lived in The Netherlands for a while, and a national election occurred during my time there. That kind of campaign was precisely what was said: the leader of P (in this case the PvdA, or Labour Party) promised to be in coalition with party G (in this case, D66, or Democratic Party) if he was asked to form a government by the Queen.

Since The Netherlands is constantly governed by coalitions thanks to their particular PR system of voting, campaigning clearly on your partners of preference made sense.

If Canadian leaders did this, life might be more interesting ... but even someone like Layton for the NDP campaigns "to win", not "to join".

So, my conclusion? We Canadians tend to use our vote (and I am personally a big exception to this, as I almost always vote for the person I think will make the best MP for my riding, regardless of their party affiliation, if any) with an eye on "who we want to win", i.e. become the Head of Government (or Prime Minister). If more Canadians had thought about coalitions, for instance, they might have voted for May and her Greens, as she came closest to declaring whom she would partner with. I think this is why there was a general revulsion against last year's attempt to supplant the Harper Government with a Coalition even amongst many who deeply dislike either Stephen Harper personally or the Conservative Party generally, and why they would say "coalitions are un-Canadian" (when clearly in our system they are not).

Anyway, that's all I want to say on the subject.

Sparky said...

Despite Sparky's weak attempt at refuting the killer app, Audrey, its still irrefutable.
Yeah, umm, about that--the rest of us will recall how it was easily refuted. See, you used the word 'tend', see, and 'tend' means, well, 'not all'. Not all Canadians vote along party lines. Therefore your supposition that they do is inherently wrong--even by your own words. Moreover even if 'some' Canadians vote laong party lines, this does not then lead to 'Canadians vote for PM'. Since that is the crux of your argument--that Canadians vote for PM--you're wrong. It's not constitutional and it certainly isn't on any ballot that i've ever filled out.
Your 'tend' and your 'intent' make this an open and shut case for your ass-kicking. Your points refuted and dismissed, your'e left wtih nothing but calling people morons and stating that you kicked ass.
Let's put this to a vote--
Who's a moron?
Ballot check 1--"A person who adamantly states that Canadians vote for Prime Minister"
Ballot Check 2--"A person who points out how incorrect that idea is."
See, I could say anything--I could call up Steven Harper and get him to state that the only people that voted for him were in his very own riding--and that they voted for him to be an MP, not PM--and Patrick would dismiss it in its entirety, 'cause it came from me. See, Patrick doesn't like his talking points to be systematically, logically and thorougly destroyed by people smarter than him. He hates cc, he hates Audrey--he hates basically anyone who has ever has the gall to point out his fallacies.
All that hate, arrogance and stupidity rolled up into one neat little package.
Meh, have at it Patrick.

Audrey II said...

For such a "killer app", Pat sure has had problems addressing the criticisms that people raise in response to it. Maybe calling something "irrefutable" or repeating "I win" ad nauseum knocks em dead in Wild Rose country, but there's likely a more critical audience here.

Intent doesn't translate into function. Pat might "intend" for his adolescent chest-thumping to be compelling to others, but that intent does not make it so.

As Sparky has accurately pointed out, there is a relationship between design and function, particularly when non-conventional situations (such as a minority government losing the confidence of Parliament) require addressing.

I understand that many Canadians might not like the design that exists. I understand that many Canadians might intend for their vote to mean something other than what it does. None of those things that Pat keeps appealing to change reality any more than his attempt to replace the existing system of governance in Canada with a figment of his imagination does.

I've said multiple times that the votes Canadians cast in federal elections do have an influence on the seating of the PM. Pat continues to flog that strawman.

I've never once advocated a return to conditions where women are disenfranchised or the 19th century. Pat continues to flog that strawman.

I've raised multiple criticisms of the supposed "killer app". Instead of address them, Pat's simply repeated variations of "I win".

I've provided links to references that point out that Pat's in error with respect to both design and function. Pat has not provided any references to support his "people Canadians vote for for PM" claim.

I've been consistent in my criticism of the original claim. Pat's moved the goalposts by attempting to add the "indirect" qualifier.
I've not made fallacious appeals to authority or intent. Pat has repeatedly.

Again, I'm more than happy with the contrast that Pat continually provides illustration of. Let the circus go on!

Sparky said...

And I agree with Bruce--Canadians 'tend' to vote along party lines. This is why it was a very big surprise in the last election in my riding when an NDP candidate won instead of the liberal candidate. Historically, my riding 'tends' towards liberal due to the population base.
However, as proven with the last election, 'tends' can, and do indeed, change.
So you can wax poetically about 'tends', you can try betting your money on 'tends'... you can even walk into the voting booth and be one of the 'tends' that'll vote for your party. However, 'tends' are not design. 'Tends' are not legal. 'Tends' are not everyone. And 'tends' cannot be the basis of definitive statements like 'Canadians vote for PM'.
Definitive stements require definitive proof. 'Tends' are not proof for, like french vocabulary, there are always exceptions.
This is the point that Patrick refuses to grasp.
Yet he adheres to it like a drowning man on a waterlogged plank.
It's amazing how Patrick will write off anyone else's point on the most specious of reasons 9and name call along the way), yet his obviously flawed points (obvious to everyone but him) are cast instone and irrefutable.
He holds everyone elses feet to the fire on the smallest of matters, yet won't offer a mea culpa on blatant wrongs.
Most times its just entertaining to watch.
I've said it before and i'll say it again--Patrick has written some very good blog posts--thoughtful, insightful and a pleasure to read. Anytime he's wrong, however, he just goes off the deep end into sheer lunacy.

Audrey II said...

"We Canadians tend to use our vote (and I am personally a big exception to this, as I almost always vote for the person I think will make the best MP for my riding, regardless of their party affiliation, if any) with an eye on "who we want to win", i.e. become the Head of Government (or Prime Minister)."

Bruce, I completely agree. The degree to which that expectation accurately reflects the system of governance Canada has is a matter of import, however, and a matter that isn't resolved by agreement with the above premise.

Patrick Ross said...

Heh.

Looks like Audrey and Sparkles are already reduced to the "commiserating" stage.

I also love the way you two are trying to butter Bruce up so you can convince him that maybe, just maybe you're reasonable.

Which doesn't play at all well with the magnitude of the ignorance the two of you have displayed here.

"The degree to which that expectation reflects the system of governance Canada has is a matter of import, however, and a matter that isn't resolved by agreement with the above premise."

So Audrey really is so arrogant as to try and tell Canadians what they can and cannot expect from their democracy.

Lovely.

It's nice to see Audrey's finally making some concessions regarding the intention by which Canadians vote. Now, if only Audrey would admit the function a Canadian's vote has in terms of electing the government through the election of a local representative, she'd be in business.

Sadly, that will never happen, as Audrey's too pig-headed to admit defeat.

Patrick Ross said...

"And I agree with Bruce--Canadians 'tend' to vote along party lines."

Wasn't that the portion of the killer app that Sparkles was so weakly trying to refute, by attempting to have himself treated as a majority of one?

My lord, but these people are a waste of time.

Sparky said...

Yeah, because in Patrick's world, 'tend' equals 'all'.
And 'kissing up'?? Ummm, yeah, about that...
My first comment--"If my intent for the next election is to vote for the best person for my riding (as is my usual intent anyway), that could possibly go against who I think would be the best PM. Me voting in my riding for the guy I want there does not immediately equal my support for his party's leader."
Bruce's comment--"as I almost always vote for the person I think will make the best MP for my riding, regardless of their party affiliation, if any"
Any more disingenuous points you wanna make, Patrick?
"weakly trying to refute"? Yeah, we can tell that by how well you refuted it.
Oh wait, you didn't.
Your 'killer app' was dead in the starting gate.
You cannot posit the 'irrefutable conclusion' that 'Canadians vote for PM' based on what Canadians 'tend' to do. 'Cause, as stated numerous times, and even proven by what Bruce stated (and myself, for the record), is that whereas some Canadians may vote along party lines in every election, there are those that do not.
What is constitutional, and as seen on the ballots, however, is that when Canadains vote, they vote for their local member of parliament. This can be seen in every election, this can be seen on every ballot, and no matter how much Patrick wants to disregard these points, it's the reality of our electoral process. People's intentions are irrelevant. When you go vote, you can on;y vote for the people on the piece of paper. No more, no less. Intention is a nice discussion--"Which party do you want to win?", "Who would you like to see as PM?". However, that's not on the ballot.
And, if there were to be a crisis, the 'intent' doesn't factor into framing a solution. Only the design matters. Another point that Patrick ignores and refuses to deal with.
Someday, when 'function' or 'intent' be drafted into legislation and voted into law, then, well, that'd be law and no longer intent or function--but 'design'.
So, again, Patrick = wrong. We don't vote for PM. Constitutionally, legally, or otherwise. PM is not a ballot line item, nor is Political Party. If and when it is, that'll be part of the 'design'. Until such time, Patrick can obfuscate and digress all he wants.
In the end, however, he will still be wrong.
And in pure Patrick 'lack of self awareness' Ross fashion, he says "My lord, but these people are a waste of time."
Yeah, 'cause we're the ones adamantly stating that Canadians vote for PM. Oh we're not? Patrick is? One guy here is telling all other Canadians what their 'intent' is when they vote.
Waste of time? Thy name is Patrick

Sparky said...

Quoth the idiot--"So Audrey really is so arrogant as to try and tell Canadians what they can and cannot expect from their democracy"
No, Audrey is pointing out the constitutionality of our electoral process--the 'design', if you will, to the most obtuse and disingenuous moron I've ever had the misfortune of debating with.
Moreover, once again, Patrick wrongly accuses Audrey of arrgance and in the very same breath tells each and every Canadian that they're voting for PM every time they cast a vote! That every time we vote, each and every one of us 'intends' to vote for party/PM!
Yeah, if you want to start reading your claptrap, Patrick, and trying to find your own disingenous hackery, it'd be a hell of a lot easier on the rest of us...

Audrey II said...

"So Audrey really is so arrogant as to try and tell Canadians what they can and cannot expect from their democracy."

You continue to exceed your own standard of problems with reading comprehension. I'm not "telling Canadians" anything that Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, The Canadian Encyclopedia, or numerous PoliSt departments across the country don't also say. You, on the other hand, have yet to link to a single authoritative source that supports your absurd original claim. Again, this is another contrast that I'm happy to watch you continually illustrate.

"It's nice to see Audrey's finally making some concessions regarding the intention by which Canadians vote."

I never argued that Canadians don't have a wide-range of expectations when they cast their vote. In fact, I acknowledged as much multiple times above. Your inability to accurately understand and/or summarize others' positions isn't "concessions" by them by any stretch of the imagination.

"Now, if only Audrey would admit the function a Canadian's vote has in terms of electing the government through the election of a local representative, she'd be in business"

I have. Multiple times. The problem is that that function isn't the same as this "indirect vote" that you've moved the goalposts to. "Have an influence on the decision to seat" is a very different construct than "vote for" (I've explained why without response multiple times above), even with the post facto addition of qualifiers. You're efforts to bridge the difference between something that we all agree exists (Intent to influence) and your very different original claim (vote for) have involved changing your original assertion through the insertion of a qualifier, strawman slaying galore, and now the above "Oh, so you're going to be so arrogant to to try to tell Canadians what they can expect" emotional appeal. As always, I hope that and your "I win" bluster works out for you. I'm quite content with the difference between it and what I've presented.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Keep squirming, kiddies.

You know, it usually doesn't help your case, Sparkles, when you refute yourself -- then refute yourself again on the same point. Not so much a "flip flop" as a "flip flop flip".

(I wonder how long we'll be waiting on the next "flop".)

That's poor debate technique. You might want to look into that.

In the meantime, I've achieved my objective here, so I win. Which means you lose.

Have I reminded you of that recently?

Sparky said...

Yeah, I'm the one that stated that we voted for PM's, then, well, no, not actually vote for PM's but indirectly vote for PMs... but, not really that, either--just our collective intents are to vote for PM's... but, wait--no, not even that--some of us, when we vote, want our votes to represent whom we want for PM...
Oh wait, that wasn't me--that was you.
You've flopped. Hard. And now you don't want to man up and admit it. That's okay--you're allowed to wallow in your own ignroance. It's almost obscene, however, that you go so far to display that ignorance for all to see.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.

Saying -- in the interest of brevity -- that we vote for our Prime Minister, then later adding the detail that we indirectly vote for our Prime Minister isn't a contradiction.

Claiming Canadians don't tend to vote for parties over local candidates, later admitting that they do, then attempting to claim Canadian's don't is a self-contradiction of massive proportions.

Most people are content to flip flop. Not Sparkles. He has to flip flop flip.

(By the way, Sparkles, I never actually said that a Canadian's vote necessarily reflects who they actually want for Prime Minister. It only functions that way.)

But don't worry, Sparky. Perhaps some day in the near future Audrey or Robert Peter John Day will tell you that you have to argue that Canada has a President. You'll dutifully obey, and those of us who actually know a thing or two about Canadian politics will get to laugh at you again.

Balbulican said...

Patrick, would it be impertinent to inquire what, precisely, you are a student OF?

It's clearly not history, political science, philosophy, or English. So what exactly are you "studying"? Alchemy?

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

There, there, Balby.

I know it's hard to watch your friends lose so badly.

Sparky said...

ROTFL!
Keep at it, Patrick. You're always good for a laugh or two.
And since Patrick failed to address any one of the multitude of points that blatantly contradict his supposition, and since he's moved his goalposts, and since he's resorted to name calling, cc name dropping and all his other tricks to ignore the actual topic at hand, well, we're pretty much done again.
Yet another triangle in the ever growing list of Patricks wrongness.

Patrick Ross said...

Since Sparkles didn't provide a single point worth addressing, we were actually done a long time ago.

See, most people wait for other people to refute their argument -- even people who offer arguments as weak as Spanky's.

But not Sparkles. Sparkles is in such a hurry to lose any argument he gets into that he refutes them himself, then (just to stay consistent with himself), refutes his refutal.

See folks, Audrey's blog exists in a state of permanent epic fail. Sparky shares this distinction, but there's a difference.

Sparkles is oddly commited to living that permanent and epic failure on a continual basis. It would be painful to watch if it wasn't so bloody hilarious.

Sparky said...

Patrick loves to shoot his own self in the foot--al lthe time.
He says we vote for PM, and, to rove that point he states that PM's are apponited.
He also loves to say things like others 'didn't provide a single point worth addressing' when every point of his was throoughly decimated.
Moroever, when he tried to rebut only one point that proved his faulty supposition wrong, his ass was handed to him yet again.
Patrick then brings in his 'i win, you lose' game based just on his say so--without, mind you, refuting any of these wupposed 'weak' points that should, at least according to Patrick, be easily dispensed with.
That about sums up Patrick's whole commenting history anywhere.
Oddly, Patrick's okay with that.
Have at it, Patrick.

Sparky said...

And now to thoroughly eviscerate Patricks own arguement using Patricks own words--
"...the people we get to vote for for Prime Minister in Canada."
He then quantifies this statement by using this 'killer app'--
"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government, and

2. As Canadians tend to cast their votes with party brand identity and leadership in mind, and

3. As only party leaders are invited to become Prime Minister and form the government in Canada, therefore:

Canadians vote for their Prime Minister, even if indirectly. And thus the selection process for party leadership -- which John Ibbitson offers a brilliant critique of in Open and Shut -- decides who the candidates for Prime Minister will be.
"
Which I, and others, have already thoroughly destroyed, but let's look at point 1 again--
"1. As Canadians have nurtured a long tradition of plurality-winning parties forming the government..."
Well Patrick, your words, since you state it's germane to the conversation--
"New Brunswick 1987"
OMG!!!
Point 1 can't be 100 percent factual 'cause somewheres in Canadian history a single party got all seats!
And Patrick can't dismiss this point 'cause he his own self stated that this is an entirely appropriate point for federal elections!
Point 1--factually correct on the federal level, but not correct by Patrick's own standards
Point 2--correct for some Canadians, but in this very thread there are 2 examples where it isn't. There are many Canadians that vote along party lines, no matter who the leader of the party is, and there are many Canadians that vote for the best MP in their minds, and party/PM doesn't enter the equation.
Point 3--well, point 3 directly refures Patrick's argument.
So, along with all the other poitns made in this thread that show Patrick's poor little argument to be wrong, we're done.
If Patrick states that 'Canadians tend to want their vote to reflect their choice of PM', I'm good with that. However, that's a far cry from 'Canadians vote for PM.'
And if he can't understand that simple point, wel lthen his post secondary education--hell, his grade and high school education was a complete waste of money. The only thing Patrick learned in all this is how to whine and bitch and moan 'cause he always gets his facts wrong and wants to yip to the world how right he is.
Have at it, Patrick

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Once again, Sparkles, provide something worth refuting -- in other words, something that doesn't just reveal your overwhelming ignorance, and maybe we'll talk.

In the meantime, I suggest you twaddle off and go get your next batch of marching orders and personal opinions from Robert Peter John Day.

Sparky said...

ROTFL!
I don't know why Patrick wants to continue to put his profound hackery on display...
This is approaching the level of 'throw the guy a rope'--it's to the point when you just have to sympathize for someone that goes out of his way to appear this stupid.
I'm sorry Patrick. I really am. The next time you state something inane, idiotic and wrong, I'll try to dumb down the conversation so you can at least attempt to partake in the conversation intellectually. I'm quite confident there will be a next time 'cause you haven't failed to disappoint us in this regard as yet.
The list of your failures is ever growing and you'll happily continue to add to them.
Now be a good boy and run off and whine about Robert Peter John Day again--that'll take your mind off your epic failures.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Speaking of Sparkles' hackery...

Well, let's just say the sun will come out tomorrow.

Sparky said...

I'm curious now...
In this 80+ comment thread, can anyone find anywhere in which Patrick successfully dispences with any point made by someone else? I mean seriously, in all of Patricks commetns here (and there are legion), there must be something showing Patrick at least successfully argued one point...
There isn't?
Therein lies the wonder that is Patrick. 80+ comments and nothing to show for it other than his say-so.
I have it on good authority that sooner or later, you have to score a 'win' based on more than your say so...
Patrick got one thing correct--the sun'll indeed, come out tomorrow. And as it does, it'll find Patrick still proclaiming victory in the desert of his defeat.
I'm good with that. As always, Patrick fails to disappoint in this regard.

Post a Comment