Castro’s name appears on no ballot before the people of Cuba, so your George Bush analogy falls apart before it even begins. Bush et al. put their names on the ballot due to the fact that the members of the Electoral College are honour bound (but not law bound in many states) to vote as the plebes command. American electors, however, have virtually no choice over their representative in the Electoral College and so much take it on faith that the selection of delegates who will act faithfully on their behalf - in spite of lawful repercussion. During the presidential election of 2000, for example, there was nothing stopping a revolt of electors from voting Al Gore in as president. Granted it probably would have started a constitutional crisis, but he absolutely would have been the legal president of the United States of American, in spite of an otherwise mathematically sound win by George Bush.

All systems of election have their flaws. Why do we get to decide that Cuba’s is more flawed than ours? Why do they not have the right to their own sovereign electoral process, just as we do?

Is say again: Leave Cuba Alone.

I absolutely acknowledge the fact that Cuba, as a one party system, offers only one selection on the election ballot for a candidate. That’s the way it works in a one-party system.

The people of Cuba, however, have a voice in selecting the candidate in the first place. At least fifty percent of the voting public needs to support the candidate in order for their nomination as a candidate to be accepted. This means that the people do, in fact, have a voice. Should only 49% of the public support a potential candidate’s bid for nomination then that bid fails. Only the guy who gets more than 50% support of his constituents can get his name on the ballot in the first place.

It’s kind of like the presidential primary system in the States, except that there’s a rather severe cut-off point for the potential candidate. Pluralities don’t win, only majority.

It is my contention that the people of Cuba have a right to whatever system of elections they so see fit. Just as the people of the United States do. So, too, do the people of Canada, the United Kingdom and, yes, even India. All of these countries have different (albeit slight in some cases) systems of elections, each system empowered by the Sovereignty of the nation. I dispute the contention that a socialist system is a lesser system than a so-called federal constitutional monarchy, as we have here in Canada, or a federal presidential constitutional republic. as they have in the United States.

So, again I state, please read what I’ve written and understand it for what it says. Also, take a little time to research the electoral process of Cuba and you’ll come to realize that contrary to propaganda, the people of Cuba do have a voice in their election process and they wield it. With voter turnout of more than 95% on a consistent basis they have one of the highest electoral participation ratios in the world. Of course, it’s probably pretty easy when there’s only one name on that final ballot.

It think that claim is arguable at best.

The people have been asking for someone to come in and free them for awhile.

A year or so ago there was an issue with prenatal classes in Montreal being disrupted because Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men didn’t want their wives to be in mixed-gender classes. I disagree with that so long as the classes are paid for with public funds; private classes are welcome to do as they please.

The problem that I see with trying to rationalize forcing people to forgo their religious practises when they move to Canada is that it ends up sending the “if they wanted to do that, they should move back to their own country” message… which is a slippery slope, too. As long as laws of leeway, such as this one, do not harm anyone else, then let them be.