24th July 2004, 12:55 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:It happened around three times in the 1800s, but never in the 1900s...until 2000, that is. The previous 'most contested' election was probably 1878, I think. Hayes vs Tilden.
Oh yeah, and if the prime minister is chosen by parliament and the prime minister is the chief of state, it's not really any better than what we have. It's still state-by-state (or district-by-district) so you definitely could have the winning side have less votes. And you can't vote out someone without voting their party out in congress, which is something that doesn't happen that often... the Republicans have held the House since 1994. Before that I think the Democrats had had it for decades... The Senate is more back and forth, but if it was a parliamentary system there would be no Senate. Wouldn't the big states be happy then...
That's another thing. The Senate is there to provide balance between the bigger and smaller states. If you have one house and it's by population, like the house, the small states would get overwhelmed... who'd listen to a state with one representative when California has fifty?
States that are richer and more heavily populated always get the most attention regardless of what system you use,Some States like Maine are lower priority dont get much attention they have fared worse then canada's smallest province at one time.
P.E.I is very tiny, But they always managed thanks to tourism and agricultural income. But the idea of merging with the other neighboring provinces was thought of,Not so much about represenation but funding as the main reason.With just 140,000 people thats not enough to keep on
par with the rest of the nation with such a low tax output.
Actually those representatives all come from different parties, Whats more fare having one Right winger represent you? Or both sides of the coin there for you? Its easier for 3rd parties to have chance into the goverment.
The Provinces real representative is the elected Premier (Govenor) and every few months they all meet together with the Prime Ministry and state their issues. With 50 states you couldnt do that like we can.
While it would be good if we could give more power to our senators that I agree completely,Yes we have Senators.Our system could still use some refining but who is to say ours doesnt have some unique benifits?
Our country is smaller so I understand the U.S functions differently for its own needs.
Another thing for a long time some parties represented just specific regional areas, The reform represented the west primarily untill it decided to move beyond that , They did it since the two main parties in their minds was only centralized in eastern canada and they felt they needed to get their issues more attention and they felt abandoned ,Since nobody gave a shit about those Corn pickers and oil beefs untill they made everyone give a shit.
If it waisnt for the monopoly of your two parties you would probaily see groups just representing regional areas and just there to get their demands heard.