« distracting | Main | beautiful day »

Monday, November 01, 2004


a question for my american readers.

how, when your country is as divided as it is can any elected leader represent the wishes of his electors?

doesn't the division of your country's beliefs represent a fundamental flaw in your two party system?

Posted by ruzz on November 1, 2004 at 11:09 PM in the body politic and my rectum. both stink. | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference question::




Posted by: Goddess | Nov 2, 2004 8:57:58 AM

are we then celebrating the divorce on new year's eve?

Posted by: jude | Nov 2, 2004 5:24:17 PM



Posted by: MiSchiEvOUs One | Nov 2, 2004 9:40:38 PM

Cute Jude, as usual.

Posted by: Goddess | Nov 3, 2004 3:14:29 PM

The two party system is pretty majorly flawed no matter what. I don't know how any elected leadership can represnt the wishes of the great unwashed masses. But I don't know how any other sort of leadership would mannage to do that too. A dictator who everyone hates? Wait, I thought that's what we. . . oh, right, never mind.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 3, 2004 8:21:12 PM

As you know, we have a f*&^kin' shrubbery for another 4 years. More than anything it saddens me that the country is so divided, and I'm embarrased to be an american (but I have been for a while). Yes, there is a fundamental flaw in the 2 party system, but I believe there are fundumental flaws in every system, else there would be a utopia out there. Ignorant american question; what is canada's system?

Posted by: Alchemist | Nov 4, 2004 6:56:55 AM

If you ask a historian, we have a three party system, but truly we have four parties with official status in parliment currently. The Alliance, which would be your extreme righties, the New Democrats, which would be your extreme lefties and your Liberals (currently in power federally) who would be your "we'll sit right in the middle and screw ya"ies. We also have the Bloc Quebecois for your "we want our own country, but we'll use your money and international clout, merci" Frenchies but, unless you are french, you try to ignore them.

Please don't feel that this selection actually offers choice. It doesnt.

I think i like Ruzz and Teg's world vote approach, myself.

Posted by: Reluctant One | Nov 4, 2004 7:36:49 AM

i disagree that there isn't choice. By comparision to the almost identical parties in the states we have extreme right (alliance), right (the liberals), left (the ndp), seperatists! (bloq) and now on the extreme left the green party (which obtained official party status in the last election.

but, more important than that, there is a greater chance for change and upheaval because new parties can form, get support (at any time) and become official parties. which is what the assliance did, consuming an existing party (pc) in the process.

it doesn't ensure choice, but our political scene may be very different in 10 years, the states will still have two parties, two men.

not to mention, that in Canada, the party system --towing the party line-- is not as deeply entrenched, and there are members who vote their conscience even when it goes against the party line.

and, in canada, there is always an official minority, or in this case, the entire government is a minority government, which somewhat paralyzes the government, but is an honest reflection of what canadians feel about their government. there is no leadership right now and our government reflects that.

whereas, the states, is deeply divided, yet, one man or party holds the balance of power, and the dems can't stop him under any means.

that point alone makes me prefer our system over theirs.

Posted by: ruzz | Nov 4, 2004 1:11:21 PM