[Stallone]

Another McNader problem.

To govern, you must win the votes of not only the base (which is no more than 20% of the population), but appeal to sufficent numbers of the middle to form a MAJORITY.

Other than Planet Bananas, where does 20% equal victory?

More interestingly, here in America, no Democrat president would have been elected if not for women voters. That is, all Democratic presidential post-war candidates would have lost (including Clinton twice) if only men voted.

The point is, you need to have the Warrior Freeper quality of a Schwarzenegger to retain the base (lower taxes, less government, strong defense) and somehow bring the mindless middle votes into your camp.

Hard-core conservative litmus tests will guarantee you failure, not eternal life.

If winning the votes of the majority seems too distasteful, you are not helpful to the conservative cause, and in fact are a danger to it.

[RebelAlbertan]

I can see your point. The problem is the Liberal government (and some provincial governments as well) freely pick policy from the opposing parties and implement tham as their own, guaranteeing a rather static political system.

While it is beneficial for conservatives to propose and implement moderate poliocies that appeal to the moderate voters, any hope for substantial change is inhibited by those who help maintain the status quo.

How then do you pass major parliamentary reform, when it threatens the the existing government apparatus that benefits one region at the expense of all others?

There is no way of sugar coating this type of change, and seemingly no way to make it palatable unless you remove the teeth rendering it ineffective. (For example EEE Senate: Equal-Elected-Effective, where the region that benefits most from the status quo won't vote for Equal senate, so you make it a EE Senate to appeal to the majority so it will be palatable, which in turn eliminates the intended effect and only maintains the status quo).

Therefore there is only one solution to your greivances with the ruling central elite: Removing yourself from them.

[RebelAlbertan]

I can see your point. The problem is the Liberal government (and some provincial governments as well) freely pick policy from the opposing parties and implement tham as their own, guaranteeing a rather static political system.

While it is beneficial for conservatives to propose and implement moderate poliocies that appeal to the moderate voters, any hope for substantial change is inhibited by those who help maintain the status quo.

How then do you pass major parliamentary reform, when it threatens the the existing government apparatus that benefits one region at the expense of all others?

There is no way of sugar coating this type of change, and seemingly no way to make it palatable unless you remove the teeth rendering it ineffective. (For example EEE Senate: Equal-Elected-Effective, where the region that benefits most from the status quo won't vote for Equal senate, so you make it a EE Senate to appeal to the majority so it will be palatable, which in turn eliminates the intended effect and only maintains the status quo).

Therefore there is only one solution to your greivances with the ruling central elite: Removing yourself from them.