The populous, highly urbanized Ontario-Quebec axis dominates the power structure of Canada to a much greater extent than does the Pacific Coast and the North-East dominate us political power.
And we don't have a Senate that truly represents regional interests as a countervailing force as does the US.
This imbalance of power is why the Reform/Alliance proposal for a "triple E" senate is so attractive west of the lakehead and why it is so opposed in Ontario and Quebec.
This emphasis on 'divided' puzzles me. What did the voting numbers look like when the USA was 'undivided'?
Quebec holds elections to secede from Canada like a ritual; they can't even agree on what language they are going to speak. Somehow we are the nation divided?
There used to an example of what these people would call a nation united but that bad man Ronald Reagan made it go away.
That voice does not say anything constructive or even clever, but it IS loud.
The Canadian minority has no voice. In fact, in a truly Orwellian sense, they are non-people.
Their history is down the memory hole.
The American minority can become majority again by republican means.
The Canadian minority cannot. They need to consider alternatives.
Canada's real problem is that there is no balance of power. The chief executive is determined by the party that controls the parliament. The result is that Canada is perpetually a one party government.
Of course the U.S. is divided, it is out nature to freely disagree in certain areas and unite in others as we see fit.
In socilist countries everyone is united because that is what the controlling party dictates. Where do you think the term "politically correct" comes from?
The liberal government in Canada has hamstung the opposition. I feel sorry for the majority of Canadians.
And yes, you do get the the form of government you deserve.
Tough luck Canucks!
If Canada does not rectify the flaws in its system, it will collapse someday. They are apparently continuing on the goodwill of the 60 percent who are willing to allow themselves to be ruled by the minority.
We've had Presidents elected on pluralities before, when there are serious third parties out there. Clinton, twice, Woodrow Wilson, and Lincoln won with pluralities. But it's not as common in our system, and since our legislatures don't have a third party generally, there is less of a sense that we are being governed by a minority when this occurred, and more a sense that it was a happenstance. If there developed a continuing situation where there were 3 parties, and a minority was winning, what tends to happen is that the 2 leading parties coopt key elements of the 3rd party to gain those voters, and eventually the 3rd party ceases to exist.
In Canada, it looks like their system does not force them to respond in this fashion. It will tend to centralize power in a one party state instead of devolve back to a two party system. Which is a serious flaw.
I like Canada a lot, and therefore, I think there should be 4 of them. An east coast, a Quebec, an Ontario and a Western Canada. Maybe that will happen when things get bad enough in their political system.
The US does not have a separatist federal party, Canada does...just another lame hypocrisy from the left. I don't hear Americans calling for their state to be separated from their country, I hear Canadian provinces though. America as far as I know are more united than Canada.