Canadian Federal Election 41

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Nations with proportional representation don't have nearly the disparity between the percentage of the vote a party gets and the percentage of seat they get in the legislature. Of course, the legislatures in nations with proportional representation are also often a clusterfuck of small parties, various coalitions, etc. A system with first-past-the-post elections and fewer parties is much more stable, with the downside of being less democratic.

Absolutely true. Proportional representation also tends towards complaints that local representation is lacking. I can't say I'm a huge fan of FPTP, but I have yet to see an alternative system that provides enough overall benefit to justify a changeover.

My joke was more that whining is going to happen regardless of voting system or result. The only difference is who does the whining.

 

[Shawn]

I think people are "whining" because this wasn't the kind of results most people were expecting until maybe this last weekend. Of all the ways this could have played out, I think even Conservative supporters can admit a Harper majority was least likely until the last few days.

And even though you do have a point about vote splitting on the right when the Alliance and PC existed as separate entities, it still doesn't mean the fact that 60% of Canada in 2011 voted for the left and got a majority right-wing government for four full years is an indication of how awesome our system of voting and government is.

I don't want to get into partisan arguments, but why is it that the right always uses the argument of "well, the left had it the exact same way when they were in power..."? Yeah, it sucks that Chretien got a minority government in 1997 with even less votes than Harper got in 2011, but it doesn't make this current situation any less shitty if you look at it by itself.

 

[RdKetchup]

Basically, you want a run-off system?

An instant run-off:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

In the UK, a referendum is comming up on such a proposition:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I don't want to get into partisan arguments, but why is it that the right always uses the argument of "well, the left had it the exact same way when they were in power..."?

I don't want to get into partisan arguments, but why is it always the left that complains about the voting system when they lose, but does nothing to change it when in power?

 

[rickhamilton620]

Isn't it fun? It's basically a spectator sport if you ask me, and especially so this time because of the hugely unpredictable outcome.

Just watching all the different riidngs results coming in and seeing the experts interpret them is fun. You really don't have this in American presidential politics where despite the networks' best efforts you're basically just waiting to see whether it's the Republican or the Democrat who wins. I mean local results do make a difference in the US too, but here the matter of who forms government is more complex and so more fun to me.

To be fair, something similar here happens as well. Experts interpret the results on a state by state basis, esp. those states that are key election states like Ohio and to a lesser extent PA.

 

[toma_alimosh]

You do realize that up until the two right side parties merged into the CPC, this happened every single time that the Liberals got a majority, right?

You do realize that what you just said does not have anything to do with what I said, right?

What I said is that although the majority of the country is committed to political ideals in the left part of the spectrum, for which they voted, the country now has a right-oriented majority government. I'm not talking about a single political party, I'm talking about the whole spectrum of politics.

Most people find themselves in a certain range within this spectrum from which they rarely deviate, unless their lives are altered in a drastic way as to change their whole perspective on what's important in life. Some people stick to one side of the spectrum, no matter what. Some of them stick to the farther sides of the spectrum no matter what, and some may find themselves in the middle and shift very slightly from side to side around that center.

So let's recap where the political parties of Canada are at the moment:

Conservative moderate right
Liberal centre-left
NDP moderate left
Bloc centre-left
Green far left

So how many right wing major parties does canada have? 1.
How many left wing major parties does canada have? 4

So you see, the people on the left have more choices on who they want to vote. If they're mildly left, they might vote liberal or bloc; if they're moderately left, they go NDP, and if they're borderline communist (jk), they go green (yes, this is a bad color blind joke, but I didn't set it up that way ). What choices do the people on the right side of the spectrum have, whether they're mildly right, moderately right or far right? Conservative Party of Canada, only 1 answer.

So why are there no centre-right parties or anything like that, you ask? Well, there was once a party that was center-right one time, and then they changed their views ... Oh yes, the Progressive Conservative Party. You see, despite past success, with time that party became very weak and in an understanding with the moderately right Alliance party (headed by Stephen Harper at the time), they started a movement to "Unite the Right". That's exactly what they called it. The only real premise of such a merger was that there was not enough support for right-winged parties in parliament that they had to unite in order to gain representation, and unite they did, voter base and all, into a moderately right party, the current Conservative party (they didn't even meet the PCs half way). Not all PCs were content with the idea of moving further right ... in fact quite a few important people in the party at the time left because they didn't agree with the merger (including former prime minister Joe Clark, former candidate for leadership of the party, Scott Brison and the president of the party, Bruck Easton). Probably left because the party was throwing away their firm roots and selling those ideas out for a shot at the leadership of the country...

In 2000, the Liberals got a majority government with 40.85% of the popular vote. Gee, that's not much more than the CPC got this time around.
But wait! On 1997, the Liberals gained a majority government with only 38.46% of the popular vote! And in 1993, with 41%! Quite the "backdoor" they seem to have in these elections!

Again, I was addressing the political spectrum, so let's analyze it from the correct perspective, shall we?
In 2000 the left-winged parties got 60.08% of the popular vote. In 1997, they got 60.18% and in 1993, 61.64%. So what did the majority left-wing voters get for their votes? A left-winged majority government. It may not have been the one they voted for, but it was, at least, close enough on the political spectrum to be content with.

Ah, but I suppose we should see if there was any time when a party got a majority with over 50% of the popular vote... oh, right! It was 1984, and it was the Conservatives.

1984 .. hmm, let's see which conservative party might you be thinking of? Oh yes, the Progressive Conservative party. The Centre-right party? The one in the best position to capture the minds of the centre as well as the right? The only right-winged party at the time? That party?

Oh yes, they won the elections that time, with a 50.03% popular vote. Damn, what a large majority popular vote for the Centre-Right! I wonder where in Canada they could have gathered all that support and all those seats in parliament. Could it be Ontario, could it be Quebec, could it be the maritimes? How about all?

Well, I have to give you credit for it, this party has been a great one and many will remember how Brian Mulroney won a majority government even after that in 1988. Gee, I guess modifying the voting system while he was in power to add 4 seats in BC and 5 in Alberta out of 13 new seats in parliament had no effect on the margin by which he got that majority ... although this majority was sustained by Quebec, even though he didn't give them any new seats, while BC pretty much abandoned him, as did most of Ontario and the maritimes. By what popular vote did they win this one? 43.02%. So only 43.02% were on the right side this time (or actually centre-right, to be politically correct). Still, a large following, so they must have went on to rule through next elections at least as the opposition party, right? Right?

Well, not quite, you see, the next elections had a new party, which called themselves the Reform party (later to become the Canadian Alliance, later to merge with the PC to become the current New Conservatives). This was a moderately right-winged party, which rose out of the western provinces in response to the PCs being too centre-minded for the people of Alberta and BC. What did this new party and its voter base do this election? They kicked the Progressive Conservatives the heck out of Alberta and BC ... the Progressive Conservatives ... the centre-right ones ... the ones that won a 50.03% majority only 2 elections before .. the ones that called Alberta and BC their homes ... They kicked them out so bad that they only got 2 seats in the 1993 elections .. one in Quebec, one in NB ... man, the PCs must have been so great that even Alberta player-hated them ...

So please, don't play the current conservatives as the Progressive Conservatives. They are not the same party, in fact the current conservatives rose out of Alberta and BC because the PCs were disliked there. They were arch rivals as long as the two parties co-existed and when the merger happened, the damn president of the PC left because he didn't want anything to do with the Alliance. What does that tell you about the amount of political principles that the former PC members kept through this merger?

 

[GM_IV]

Well FPTP was never a completely representational way to vote if you look at overall percentages. If the vote percentage meant something perhaps Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservatives wouldn't have suffered such a gigantic defeat in 1993 remember they lost a staggering 163 despite about 16-17% of the vote. You can even look at provincial elections, back in 2007 in Ontario despite the Progressive Conservatives getting more than 30% of the votes...they managed a measly 26 compared to the Liberals who have 71 with 41% of the vote. If the votes were spread too thinly across the board then you're unlikely to gain seats much less hold them. The only reason I wasn't expecting Harper majority was I wasn't expecting Toronto to actually give him seats, that's how badly things went for the Liberals that their stronghold of the Toronto area is no more...its now Newfoundland and maybe PEI. Plus I thought the Liberals couldn't do worse considering I think Dion was their worst leader and wasn't even good at campaigning.

The only leaders I can see taking up the Liberal leadership role is Bob Rae and Justin Trudeau considering the state of the party and how many prominent and potential leadership candidates have been defeated. For now I'd say Bob Rae is their best choice, they need an effective and loud attack dog something Dion and Iggy were not.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Now that, while I'm sure it took you some time to type, was hogwash. You did not vote for the Not-Conservatives. You did not vote for the Parties That Are Generally Recognized To Be To The Left Side Of An Arbitrary Ideological Line. Nobody did. To group all Not-Conservative parties into one ideological group is a logical fallacy of the highest order. Indeed, history has shown that Liberal voters are more likely to swing towards the Conservatives than the NDP - hence how the NDP has never enjoyed more than 50 seats until now, and its recent gains were mostly due to Quebec's ousting of the BQ. You can argue about what party you consider to be where on the arbitrary political scale, but the facts are thus: the Conservatives won a fair election by the rules of election that have been followed in this country since forever. You can whine about how that system works, but it's completely ridiculous to suggest that this was some sneaky "backdoor" that Harper somehow exploited to win an election in an unfair manner, when every majority except for one has been done with less than 50% of the popular vote, regardless of party, and not until someone's pet party loses do they cry about electoral reform.

So, in reality, the system is working the same way it always has. It's certainly not perfect, but every party in Canada knows how it works and how to play that particular game. You can complain about how you think Mulroney rigged the system until you're blue in the face (haha, blue!) but when you consider that those new ridings were designed to eliminate population imbalances that had appeared over time (imagine that, a flexible system that evenly distributes voting power!), the point becomes moot. You can pretend the Cons are some crazy right-wing party, but in reality they're pretty centric, much like most parties in Canada. And really, if the Liberals and NDP and BQ and Green all represent the same values as you seem to be suggesting, why are they still separate parties?

The bottom line is this: You can't and don't vote for a political spectrum, you vote for a party. You can't vote against a party or a political spectrum, you vote for a party and their ideology. That's how our system works. You can complain about it and claim electoral reform is needed all you like, but the fact is time and time again parties of both spectra win majorities, and neither initiate electoral reform because they know the current system, for better or for worse, works pretty well.


Fun fact: I didn't vote for the Conservatives. I just hate whiners.

 

[toma_alimosh]

Now that, while I'm sure it took you some time to type, was hogwash. You did not vote for the Not-Conservatives. You did not vote for the Parties That Are Generally Recognized To Be To The Left Side Of An Arbitrary Ideological Line. Nobody did. To group all Not-Conservative parties into one ideological group is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

Actually, I did vote anti-conservative, because I was very displeased with the Harper administration and choosing a political party was just a matter of aligning my personal ideals to a single non-conservative-party's platform. I approached this vote with an opened mind and was willing to hear all sides that proposed changes in the direction which I believed was better. Although the primary reason I voted is to do my duty as a citizen in true democratic tradition, the secondary reason was to express my extreme discontent with how this country has been run through the past years and through the economic downfall by the Conservatives. While I would have been displeased if the NDP had little support, I would have been content at returning to a Liberal minority, even though I did not agree with their platform on all points. In contrast, I'm not so happy now, since the political platform that the Conservatives are proposing, and no doubt will implement, differs from the one I voted for by A LOT.

Now, you say that uniting all not-conservative parties in one ideological group is a fallacy of the highest order. Would you, then, also agree that it is a fallacy of the highest order to merge all right-winged parties into one single party with the only intent to gain influence in government, regardless of what the former parties stood for in the first place?

Indeed, history has shown that Liberal voters are more likely to swing towards the Conservatives than the NDP - hence how the NDP has never enjoyed more than 50 seats until now, and its recent gains were mostly due to Quebec's ousting of the BQ.

Well, you reference the history of the Conservatives here, but let's look back at how old this new party is: it was founded in 2003. It hasn't even had a decade to prove itself. The Conservative party of now is not the Progressive Conservative party which has been in Canada for a long time. It is the whole of the Reform/Canadian Alliance party and the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives that abandoned their leadership (and their main mission) in order to "Unite the Right". Therefore, if we are to look at it from a party-based perspective, as you insist, then the current Conservative party is not the Progressive Conservatives whose track record has been proven. They are a whole new party which has only been present in 4 elections thus far, including this one.

So let's look back at the past 4 elections and see how much the percentages changed. I say percentages of the popular vote, because that's a closer measure to the number of voters that changed sides rather than seats won in parliament. Of course, even this is a bad measure of looking at changes in public opinion from one group to another as you can't identify where the lost voters went, from which party to which, whether they chose not to vote at all, etc., but it's the closest thing to give us an idea of the overall changes of the voter bases. In 2004, the Conservatives lost ~8% of the voter base that the party held after the merger, and the liberals lost ~4%. Where did this materialize? Mostly NDP ~7% and Bloc ~1%. In 2006, the Conservatives may have gained ~6.5% of the Liberal base since the change was about the same for both parties while the Bloc may have lost mainly to the NDP (both about ~1.5% change). In 2008, the Liberals lost about 4%, yet the Conservatives gained only 1.3%. Since the Bloc lost some too and the NDP only gained 0.7%, most of the Liberals do appear to have gone Green, not Conservative, as you suggest. Now, flip forward to this election and you'll see that the Conservatives gained only about 2% of the popular vote, while the Liberals lost more than 7% ... where did most of the Liberal base go? I can tell you something, it wasn't Conservative. So I ask you, what track record are you using to justify the assumption that history illustrates Liberal voters as more likely to change to Conservative rather than other parties and vice-versa?

And I must agree, the current surge of NDP seats in parliament is disproportionate to the voter base that it holds. It has more seats than it should, which has hardly ever been the case for the NDP, as it usually had less seats in parliament than the percentage popular vote may have suggested they should have. And most of those seats have come at the expense of the Bloc, which has usually had more seats than the popular vote would have suggested they should have.

You can argue about what party you consider to be where on the arbitrary political scale, but the facts are thus: the Conservatives won a fair election by the rules of election that have been followed in this country since forever. You can whine about how that system works, but it's completely ridiculous to suggest that this was some sneaky "backdoor" that Harper somehow exploited to win an election in an unfair manner, when every majority except for one has been done with less than 50% of the popular vote, regardless of party, and not until someone's pet party loses do they cry about electoral reform.

Well, first off, my "pet party" (the party for which I voted) didn't lose much. In fact, it won more than I was expecting it to, perhaps even more than it deserved. And I always questioned the system where one elects a local representative to parliament rather than just vote for a party. This election is not the reason I'm displeased with it.

I'm displeased with it because it puts "local representation" ahead of fair representation. What if you really want to vote Liberal but you know the candidate for your area is a jerk and will do bad in parliament? Do you vote for a platform you may not agree with or make a compromise, just to keep one prick from going forward, or do you elect the prick hoping the rest of the party will keep him in check? Why do the voters not get to choose the candidates that run in their riding and the parties are the ones that actually do the choices? Because you're not voting for a candidate ... not really ... you're voting for a party having more influence in parliament. So why the local candidates? Why have the illusion that you're the one picking them while it's really the parties that choose them for you? Makes no sense to me. Just because of this system, a candidate other than the one I chose may win in my area and that renders my vote completely null. I'm not talking about having votes count less than others, I'm talking about votes being rendered completely null. Now that's undemocratic. I say if a vote should be equal to another, then all votes should be weighed in equally.

Other countries have systems where the citizens choose a political party in elections rather than a local candidate, and thus every vote counts as equally as every other. Why can't Canada have such a system?!

There are many other things that I may have a problem with in Canadian politics, such as a Senate. which is chosen by the Governor General, but at the advice of the Prime Minister. Thus, the senate becomes nothing but a ploy to give the Prime Minister more power than his office deserves. And as far as Governor Generals are concerned I'm not too pleased with them spending the public's money to take private-jet vacations, as track records suggest quite a few did ...

But I'll stop with my dislikes here and focus on one: the backdoor that Stephen Harper used to get in power (minority or majority, I don't limit this to only this election). I call it a ploy because this is how i see it. It was under his leadership that the Canadian Alliance (who's leader he was at the time) proposed the Progressive Conservatives to unite with them with the sole purpose to gain more power in parliament, despite their slightly differing agendas and past rivalry. His party members proposed this to individual members of the PC party which later agreed to unite, bypassing most of the biggest members at the time. The most illustrious of leaders from the PC party would have no part in it, which is why the president of the party himself left before the merger could be completed. The PC party didn't merge with the Alliance out of love for each other. It merged out of a need for survival in the political scene and it did so in a fashion more akin to mutiny rather than amicable understanding among leading officials. Yes, people sat at a table and discussed it over, signed documents, made polls and petitions, but most of these were not those who generally lead the PCs in parliament at the time. Harper spearheaded the effort to "Unite the Right" himself. And if you look at the progress that the new Conservative party has had ever since, support for it has gone up drastically. That, in my opinion, is the cause of the Conservative's surge of power in the last 4 elections, culminating in the last. So that's why I call it a "sneaky" tactic. Because the surge of power that put them in the lead was the result of a merger that shouldn't have happened in the first place, had all parties stuck to their ideals rather than sell out for victory.

They may have played by the rules, yes, but playing by the rules doesn't necessarily mean they have to play fair, does it? Our telecommunications giants are playing by the rules at the moment, but it isn't really fair that they're ripping you off for their services, now is it? In this same sense, the parties that changed their political stance just for the sake of winning and abandoned their leaders for deals to get into power (whichever way that may be) got the lot while the parties that stood their ground, followed the norm and maintained their ideals got the short straw. So, no, I don't think this is fair. I think that discussions in parliament should be just that: discussions, they should be debates (or as Stephen Harper put it "Bickering") ... if you reduce the number of possibilities that one can pick (such as providing only one right-winged party), a political decision in any case would no longer be a debate, it would become a multiple-choice question, or even worse, a Yes-or-No.

So, in reality, the system is working the same way it always has. It's certainly not perfect, but every party in Canada knows how it works and how to play that particular game. You can complain about how you think Mulroney rigged the system until you're blue in the face (haha, blue!) but when you consider that those new ridings were designed to eliminate population imbalances that had appeared over time (imagine that, a flexible system that evenly distributes voting power!), the point becomes moot.

Well, if this system so evenly distributes voting power, why are the votes of the people who didn't choose the winner in their riding so easily discarded? In essence, if you didn't vote for the winner in your riding, your vote has done absolutely nothing to change federal policy, thus rendering your vote useless. That's all a vote is: a person stating their opinion on the way they want parliament to rule. Why should someone get more power to influence it just because they were part of a local majority?

You can pretend the Cons are some crazy right-wing party, but in reality they're pretty centric, much like most parties in Canada. And really, if the Liberals and NDP and BQ and Green all represent the same values as you seem to be suggesting, why are they still separate parties?

Really, a party lead by an immovable man, who will not be content with anything short of a majority or a political victory, rather than humbly accepting what the people give him? A party that suspends parliament when others don't want to support their ideas, a party that won't have it any other way than what it wants to accomplish? That sounds to me like a party that makes more demands than it accepts. How close to the center is that, really?

As for the other parties, they didn't unite because they actually stand for something. They're not willing to give up their solid ideals just for victory in parliament. It is because their beliefs are slightly different that they are not united. The difference is that they put lots of weight behind those small differences (they actually use those small differences to distinguish themselves and they use them religiously when running elections) and they're not willing to give them up easily, while the PC obviously did not put weight behind some of their slight differences from the Alliance.

The bottom line is this: You can't and don't vote for a political spectrum, you vote for a party. You can't vote against a party or a political spectrum, you vote for a party and their ideology. That's how our system works. You can complain about it and claim electoral reform is needed all you like, but the fact is time and time again parties of both spectra win majorities, and neither initiate electoral reform because they know the current system, for better or for worse, works pretty well.

Well, nice of political parties to say that a system works well when it works in their favor. What else are they supposed to think right after they won an election? And as you said, most political majorities won in this country did not have a majority in terms of popular vote. So the system gave them more seats than they deserved, according to a proportional electoral system. So, any party to initiate electoral reform would have to first affirm the fact that they are falsely leading the country. They'd also have to forgo parliamentary seats after the reform so as to accommodate other parties. Sure, why wouldn't a political party commit political suicide?! And when it does commit political suicide, which one of their (voter elected) MPs are they going to sacrifice first?

Then again,it really becomes a problem when it works against them. Of course, in that specific time frame, they can't do anything about it, can they? They're not the ones in power.

So you see, the reason why it can't and won't be changed is because it's a vicious circle. Everyone's too chicken to do it. It would be such a radical move that it would tear the country's politics apart. The only way to make it work again is to scrap it all and start from scratch. You do not want a parliament that loses its credibility and authority with its people, that's the domain of revolutions and coup-d'etats.

 

[Top Geek]

Holy text walls, batman!

 

[Okaen]

Holy text walls, batman!

Today I learned that Canadians debate election politics with walls of text.
Anyone know of a democratic society that doesn't have an election system that people complain about after every election?

 

[toma_alimosh]

Today I learned that Canadians debate election politics with walls of text.
Anyone know of a democratic society that doesn't have an election system that people complain about after every election?

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea ? LMAO.

That's the whole point, you have to complain. BCS can call it "whining" all he likes and Harper can call heated political discussions "bickering" all he likes, it doesn't change the fact that it's how a democracy works. People are supposed to complain. They're supposed to speak out when things aren't good for them. It's their duty to do so in order to make the democratic system work the way it's supposed to: the people must rule. If nobody complains, then how can we have change for the better? The only way for change to happen is if we tell others our opinions, gather support from those who agree with us, sign petitions and march up parliament hill with them to confront our PMs about it. If everyone just keeps quiet and accepts whatever the parliament decides for them without putting any input into it, our society really does become as democratic as the DPRK.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Actually, I did vote anti-conservative, because I was very displeased with the Harper administration and choosing a political party was just a matter of aligning my personal ideals to a single non-conservative-party's platform. I approached this vote with an opened mind and was willing to hear all sides that proposed changes in the direction which I believed was better. Although the primary reason I voted is to do my duty as a citizen in true democratic tradition, the secondary reason was to express my extreme discontent with how this country has been run through the past years and through the economic downfall by the Conservatives. While I would have been displeased if the NDP had little support, I would have been content at returning to a Liberal minority, even though I did not agree with their platform on all points. In contrast, I'm not so happy now, since the political platform that the Conservatives are proposing, and no doubt will implement, differs from the one I voted for by A LOT.

You completely and utterly missed my point. You did not (and could not have) voted Anti-Conservative, you voted for a party that best fit your personal views, as you should have. You reviewed party platforms and chose the one that made the most sense to you, be it for fiscal, social, or niche reasons, as do all responsible voters. The point is that nowhere on the ballot was there an option of voting for All Parties That Are Not the Conservatives. You voted, for better or for worse, for a single party and its platform. The reason this is an important distinction is that it nullifies your supposition that all non-Conservative voters can be lumped together into one imaginary meta-party when comparing the popular vote. The popular vote clearly states the winning party received the greatest number of votes, and we have known for decades that a popular vote of around 40% usually nets you a majority government. The losing parties' platforms did not have enough popular support to form a government, period.

Now, you say that uniting all not-conservative parties in one ideological group is a fallacy of the highest order. Would you, then, also agree that it is a fallacy of the highest order to merge all right-winged parties into one single party with the only intent to gain influence in government, regardless of what the former parties stood for in the first place?

Again, you missed the point entirely. I was clearly referencing the imaginary left wing meta-party you were using to complain about the "60/40" vote split. So, holding true with the perspective of my original comment, if the Liberals were to win a 40% majority I would consider it fallacious to complain that the combined popular vote of whatever right-wing parties exist at the time was a significant figure and should indicate a need for electoral reform.

So let's look back at the past 4 elections and see how much the percentages changed. I say percentages of the popular vote, because that's a closer measure to the number of voters that changed sides rather than seats won in parliament. Of course, even this is a bad measure of looking at changes in public opinion from one group to another as you can't identify where the lost voters went, from which party to which, whether they chose not to vote at all, etc., but it's the closest thing to give us an idea of the overall changes of the voter bases. In 2004, the Conservatives lost ~8% of the voter base that the party held after the merger, and the liberals lost ~4%. Where did this materialize? Mostly NDP ~7% and Bloc ~1%. In 2006, the Conservatives may have gained ~6.5% of the Liberal base since the change was about the same for both parties while the Bloc may have lost mainly to the NDP (both about ~1.5% change). In 2008, the Liberals lost about 4%, yet the Conservatives gained only 1.3%. Since the Bloc lost some too and the NDP only gained 0.7%, most of the Liberals do appear to have gone Green, not Conservative, as you suggest. Now, flip forward to this election and you'll see that the Conservatives gained only about 2% of the popular vote, while the Liberals lost more than 7% ... where did most of the Liberal base go? I can tell you something, it wasn't Conservative. So I ask you, what track record are you using to justify the assumption that history illustrates Liberal voters as more likely to change to Conservative rather than other parties and vice-versa?

It's a pretty straightforward supposition to make. The Liberals are the party closest in platform to the Conservatives, so it's only natural that the two would trade voters more often than, say, the Conservatives and Greens.
So, according to your numbers, over the last 3 elections, the Conservatives have gained 6.5% + ~1% + ~2% from the Liberals for a total of almost 10% of the Liberal voter base going Conservative in only five years. If that's not a clear demonstration that there is a obvious voter overlap between the two parties, I don't know what is. None of those elections were blowout victories, either.

And I must agree, the current surge of NDP seats in parliament is disproportionate to the voter base that it holds. It has more seats than it should, which has hardly ever been the case for the NDP, as it usually had less seats in parliament than the percentage popular vote may have suggested they should have. And most of those seats have come at the expense of the Bloc, which has usually had more seats than the popular vote would have suggested they should have.

Indeed! Hence why the FPTP system helped give the NDP their first Official Opposition title since confederation, and I'm really quite happy to see that happen. Layton's got a good head on his shoulders. Also a moustache.

I'm displeased with it because it puts "local representation" ahead of fair representation. What if you really want to vote Liberal but you know the candidate for your area is a jerk and will do bad in parliament? Do you vote for a platform you may not agree with or make a compromise, just to keep one prick from going forward, or do you elect the prick hoping the rest of the party will keep him in check? Why do the voters not get to choose the candidates that run in their riding and the parties are the ones that actually do the choices? Because you're not voting for a candidate ... not really ... you're voting for a party having more influence in parliament. So why the local candidates? Why have the illusion that you're the one picking them while it's really the parties that choose them for you? Makes no sense to me. Just because of this system, a candidate other than the one I chose may win in my area and that renders my vote completely null. I'm not talking about having votes count less than others, I'm talking about votes being rendered completely null. Now that's undemocratic. I say if a vote should be equal to another, then all votes should be weighed in equally.

There's the rub, isn't it? Either you have good local representation through a riding-based system, or you have no local representation through a one-man-one-vote proportion system. The problem is that both systems are far from perfect. FPTP means that majority governments are almost always done with less that 50% of the popular vote in a multi-party system. PR means that you get to elect a federal government but have no say in who your local representative is and thus federal policies may not take the needs of your local area into account. Voting is always about compromise, isn't it? Sometimes you have to weigh your local needs against your national aspirations, and sometimes you don't. Politics are rarely straightforward, as I'm sure you've learned.
[/quote]

Other countries have systems where the citizens choose a political party in elections rather than a local candidate, and thus every vote counts as equally as every other. Why can't Canada have such a system?!

For a number of reasons, mostly relating to how large and diverse our country is. If you want to implement a PR system, you will have to overcome hurdles such as convincing Quebecers that they don't need local representatives and that the rest of the country may have more influence over policies relating to their local affairs than they will. Not to mention that with PR we lose the ability to "adjust" the importance of some areas. Without a riding-based system, places like PEI and the Territories would have zero influence over the vote due to their low populations. The riding system guarantees them a dedicated voice in Parliament so their concerns are not overlooked. PR cannot accomplish that.

There are many other things that I may have a problem with in Canadian politics, such as a Senate. which is chosen by the Governor General, but at the advice of the Prime Minister. Thus, the senate becomes nothing but a ploy to give the Prime Minister more power than his office deserves. And as far as Governor Generals are concerned I'm not too pleased with them spending the public's money to take private-jet vacations, as track records suggest quite a few did ...

I agree we should have an elected Senate, but the current appointment system does not allow the PM to replace and appoint new Senators on a whim. Besides, the power the Senate wields is rather small, and usually rubber-stamps things regardless of party in power.

But I'll stop with my dislikes here and focus on one: the backdoor that Stephen Harper used to get in power (minority or majority, I don't limit this to only this election). I call it a ploy because this is how i see it. It was under his leadership that the Canadian Alliance (who's leader he was at the time) proposed the Progressive Conservatives to unite with them with the sole purpose to gain more power in parliament, despite their slightly differing agendas and past rivalry. His party members proposed this to individual members of the PC party which later agreed to unite, bypassing most of the biggest members at the time. The most illustrious of leaders from the PC party would have no part in it, which is why the president of the party himself left before the merger could be completed. The PC party didn't merge with the Alliance out of love for each other. It merged out of a need for survival in the political scene and it did so in a fashion more akin to mutiny rather than amicable understanding among leading officials. Yes, people sat at a table and discussed it over, signed documents, made polls and petitions, but most of these were not those who generally lead the PCs in parliament at the time. Harper spearheaded the effort to "Unite the Right" himself. And if you look at the progress that the new Conservative party has had ever since, support for it has gone up drastically. That, in my opinion, is the cause of the Conservative's surge of power in the last 4 elections, culminating in the last. So that's why I call it a "sneaky" tactic. Because the surge of power that put them in the lead was the result of a merger that shouldn't have happened in the first place, had all parties stuck to their ideals rather than sell out for victory.

So let me get this straight, you're angry because two political parties decided to voluntarily merge, and then people voted for that new party in a democratic election, and they won in the same fashion that every single government has ever won an election in this country? And they won more than once, demonstrating that their actions were actually increasing their support within the country's population?

Uh, yeah, how terrible and underhanded that they won a couple of fair elections. Gosh!

In this same sense, the parties that changed their political stance just for the sake of winning and abandoned their leaders for deals to get into power (whichever way that may be) got the lot while the parties that stood their ground, followed the norm and maintained their ideals got the short straw. So, no, I don't think this is fair. I think that discussions in parliament should be just that: discussions, they should be debates (or as Stephen Harper put it "Bickering") ... if you reduce the number of possibilities that one can pick (such as providing only one right-winged party), a political decision in any case would no longer be a debate, it would become a multiple-choice question, or even worse, a Yes-or-No.

So your solution, therefore, would have to be to restrict the rights of political parties to freely organize as they see fit, and instead introduce a system where the government defines what parties may and may not exist, to maintain an arbitrary balance of numbers of parties on either side of an imaginary left-right ideological line? Do you understand how ridiculous that is? Do you understand how undemocratic and unconstitutional that would be?

Well, if this system so evenly distributes voting power, why are the votes of the people who didn't choose the winner in their riding so easily discarded? In essence, if you didn't vote for the winner in your riding, your vote has done absolutely nothing to change federal policy, thus rendering your vote useless. That's all a vote is: a person stating their opinion on the way they want parliament to rule. Why should someone get more power to influence it just because they were part of a local majority?

As mentioned before, the FPTP is not perfect, and it is not without its merits. PR is not perfect and is not without its merits. No electoral system is ideal, but the riding-based system seems to suit the needs of a country the size and diversity of Canada better than a PR system and gives a guaranteed voice to all areas of the country, rather than being drowned out by the sheer population of the metropolitan centres.

Really, a party lead by an immovable man, who will not be content with anything short of a majority or a political victory, rather than humbly accepting what the people give him? A party that suspends parliament when others don't want to support their ideas, a party that won't have it any other way than what it wants to accomplish? That sounds to me like a party that makes more demands than it accepts. How close to the center is that, really?

It appears he humbly accepted control of the country, as given to him by the voters of that country in a fair democratic election. You may not like him personally (I don't either) but he is extremely intelligent and knows what will and won't fly in Parliament and in Canada. He is, to be completely honest, the best politician in Ottawa. He may not be the best person, but he is the best politician, and a stronger leader than his rivals. Sometimes that's what's needed, for better or for worse.

As for the other parties, they didn't unite because they actually stand for something. They're not willing to give up their solid ideals just for victory in parliament. It is because their beliefs are slightly different that they are not united. The difference is that they put lots of weight behind those small differences (they actually use those small differences to distinguish themselves and they use them religiously when running elections) and they're not willing to give them up easily, while the PC obviously did not put weight behind some of their slight differences from the Alliance.

You really do whine about the party merger thing a lot. If the population of a country agrees with a party enough to give it power in a democratic election, why does the name of the party matter? You complain that they're not PCs anymore, which is pretty obvious considering they're not called the PCs. If the population disagreed with their platform they wouldn't vote for them, as simple as that.

Well, nice of political parties to say that a system works well when it works in their favor. What else are they supposed to think right after they won an election? And as you said, most political majorities won in this country did not have a majority in terms of popular vote. So the system gave them more seats than they deserved, according to a proportional electoral system. So, any party to initiate electoral reform would have to first affirm the fact that they are falsely leading the country. They'd also have to forgo parliamentary seats after the reform so as to accommodate other parties. Sure, why wouldn't a political party commit political suicide?! And when it does commit political suicide, which one of their (voter elected) MPs are they going to sacrifice first?

Sorry, "falsely leading the country?" If you win a majority government with 40%, if we magically switch to PR they still are in charge, just not a mojority. Electoral reform would have to have a huge amount of support from all parties and on both a federal and provincial scale as it is a constitutional change, regardless of who is in power. Also, if it would reduce the majority to a minority and then need to be agreed upon by the losing parties, wouldn't it be easier to pass, as the losing parties would obviously want the increased influence afforded to them by the PR system? Or could it be that all the parties have realized that riding-based elections work just fine for the people and geography of Canada, and that electoral reform to a PR system would require a massive, expensive effort for terribly uncertain gain?

Then again,it really becomes a problem when it works against them. Of course, in that specific time frame, they can't do anything about it, can they? They're not the ones in power.

So you see, the reason why it can't and won't be changed is because it's a vicious circle. Everyone's too chicken to do it. It would be such a radical move that it would tear the country's politics apart. The only way to make it work again is to scrap it all and start from scratch. You do not want a parliament that loses its credibility and authority with its people, that's the domain of revolutions and coup-d'etats.

So, basically, what you're saying is that no left-wing or right-wing parties in Canada are interested in pretty much anything other than getting votes and power, regardless of party platform or ideology, and that long-term thinking is some kind of alien concept, so nobody will ever try to introduce electoral reform. No way, that sounds like politics, or something!


I think we can agree the current system is imperfect. I think we can agree that politics as an institution is imperfect and fraught with cronyism and short-sightedness. I doubt we will agree on what electoral system works the best, but frankly I'm glad that you've put some thought into how the system works and if/how it can be changed. If you fully believe that PR is a better system and are willing to work towards that goal and can find solutions to mitigate the system's problems, then good on you.

 

[GM_IV]

I've love to see electoral reform to perhaps fix the problems in FPTP or find a suitable replacement, although in Ontario we were given a referendum to choose MMP...I didn't like that and unlike many I eventually understood what it was. I really disliked the notion of electing an MPP while parties with enough votes can manage to elect their own members based on how many votes they get. There will always be bad apples in any party and with MMP there was a chance you couldn't throw them out if the party liked that member enough. With FPTP as it is, technically you can fire the Prime Minister if you live in that riding. It would be sort of funny if the Conservatives got their majority but Harper couldn't secure a seat.

 

[Shawn]

What do you guys think of the NDP team from Quebec?

Obviously the news has covered the fact that most of them are inexperienced kids well enough since the election, but I just realized one of them was actually born in 1990. That really made me stop and think...

It's really going to be something these next four years. Harper with a majority on one side and Layton and his gang of kiddo misfits on the other.

 

[shellygrrl]

An instant run-off:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

That's it! Thanks.

And I knew the UK was voting on something tomorrow, but didn't know what.

 

[JipJopJones]

Obviously the news has covered the fact that most of them are inexperienced kids well enough since the election, but I just realized one of them was actually born in 1990. That really made me stop and think...

Woah. That's as old as I am.

 

[toma_alimosh]

What do you guys think of the NDP team from Quebec?

Obviously the news has covered the fact that most of them are inexperienced kids well enough since the election, but I just realized one of them was actually born in 1990. That really made me stop and think...

It's really going to be something these next four years. Harper with a majority on one side and Layton and his gang of kiddo misfits on the other.

Well I'll just say that it's definitely going to be an interesting few years to come in Canadian politics, and both the Conservatives and the NDP have a lot of pressure on their backs right now. The economic downturn may be over, but now Canadians expect more. They expect the Conservatives to make good on continuing their "getting the economy back on track" campaign and they expect the NDP to push through with their policies, despite a majority government with an opposing platform. If either of them fail, they're going to get their asses handed to them in the next election like the Bloc had theirs this time around.
Either way, I know I'm going to be reading the political section of the paper much more often during this mandate.

You completely and utterly missed my point. You did not (and could not have) voted Anti-Conservative, you voted for a party that best fit your personal views, as you should have. You reviewed party platforms and chose the one that made the most sense to you, be it for fiscal, social, or niche reasons, as do all responsible voters. The point is that nowhere on the ballot was there an option of voting for All Parties That Are Not the Conservatives. You voted, for better or for worse, for a single party and its platform. The reason this is an important distinction is that it nullifies your supposition that all non-Conservative voters can be lumped together into one imaginary meta-party when comparing the popular vote. The popular vote clearly states the winning party received the greatest number of votes, and we have known for decades that a popular vote of around 40% usually nets you a majority government. The losing parties' platforms did not have enough popular support to form a government, period.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across, once again. I never grouped the non-conservative political parties in one "meta-party" as you suggest. What I was discussing is people's orientation on the political spectrum.

Let me explain: The political spectrum is a way to distinguish between political stances of either people, political parties, ideologies, etc. So having a position on the spectrum for a person is not an opinion, but it's really a way of thinking. Although there's many aspects that political ideals can be separated by, the most popular choice to measure a party's political orientation is by the left-right political spectrum. On the left side of the political spectrum you have those who would like more public health care, more taxation on upper class, more government price controls, more public protection of employees, more unionization, etc. In essence, they want the government to step in more in the market place. On the other side of the spectrum, the right, you have those who would have more privatized health care, less government intervention in prices, less taxation on upper class, less unionization, etc. In all, they want the government to stay as far away from the market place as possible. So you see, the two sides are opposites of one another. They differ in almost every single way like plus and minus, light and darkness, etc. They are completely opposing one another. The exact center of the spectrum is where one does not care either way. But the further you go from the center on either side, the demands that you make on a certain side become harsher and harsher. For example, if a Liberal wants a bit more public health care, an NDP wants a whole lot more public health care. So you see, both of them want more public health care, but in different degrees. On the other hand, a conservative would want less public health care. Thus, if someone chooses Liberal but gets the NDP plan, they might be a bit upset that they're spending way too much, but at least it's heading in the general direction that they agree with. If the conservative plan was implemented, though, they'd be much more upset, because it went in the completely opposite direction to what they wanted. It would be like taking them from a situation where they were uncomfortable and making it more uncomfortable for them.

So let's look at this election, then: ~40% voted for a right-winged platform, while ~60% voted for a left-winged platform. However, the one that's going to be implemented in the right-winged platform, which goes completely against the wishes of the majority of the population, because even though they voted for more government involvement in the marketplace (in varying degrees according to their preferences), they're actually going to get less government involvement in the marketplace.

Again, you missed the point entirely. I was clearly referencing the imaginary left wing meta-party you were using to complain about the "60/40" vote split. So, holding true with the perspective of my original comment, if the Liberals were to win a 40% majority I would consider it fallacious to complain that the combined popular vote of whatever right-wing parties exist at the time was a significant figure and should indicate a need for electoral reform.

Again, you have misunderstood my intentions, so let me state this again: I'm not complaining about electoral reform because the conservatives won a majority. My problem with the electoral process has been defined long before this election. The reason that I'm speaking about this topic now is because this election clearly illustrates the downfalls of the electoral process that I've been skeptical about all along. The difference this time is that it not only failed once again, it failed miserably. It resulted in a government that is going to do the exact opposite to what the majority of the population (60%) wants it to do. (See above text about the political spectrum) Thus, even though this majority may be upset to different degrees, they will be upset either way. When a government goes against the wishes of the majority of its people, I say that would be reason enough to complain.

It's a pretty straightforward supposition to make. The Liberals are the party closest in platform to the Conservatives, so it's only natural that the two would trade voters more often than, say, the Conservatives and Greens.
So, according to your numbers, over the last 3 elections, the Conservatives have gained 6.5% + ~1% + ~2% from the Liberals for a total of almost 10% of the Liberal voter base going Conservative in only five years. If that's not a clear demonstration that there is a obvious voter overlap between the two parties, I don't know what is. None of those elections were blowout victories, either.

What you said was that the degree that they overlap by is so great that most of those who switch from Liberal will switch to Conservative, rather than NDP.
Now, despite your desire to disregard the 2004 elections, I'll once again include those numbers in my calculations, because it was an election in which the Conservatives took part in against the exact same parties that they fought in this election and all others in between.

So here are the numbers: Successively, it lists all 4 elections to date, including 2004:

Liberals gained/lost: -4%, -6.5%, -4%, -7%
Conservatives gained/lost: -8%, 6.5%, 1.3%, 2%
NDP gained/lost: 7%, 1.8%, 0.7%, 12%

So for the sake of this exercise, let us first assume that any liberal voters that switched would have gone either Conservative or NDP before even considering another party. Lets us then also assume that whatever voters may have chose to leave the liberals would have gone to the conservatives first rather than the NDP. So the gains of Liberals to the Conservatives in total would be: 0% + 6.5% + 1.3% + 2% = 9.8% The gains of Liberals to the NDP would then be: 4% + 0% + 0.7% + 5% = 9.7% So, you see, even if the calculations were rigged in the Conservatives favor, it still doesn't add up, because the NDP has gained almost exactly the same Liberal percentages as the Conservatives. There is no major trend that the Liberals would rather switch to the Conservatives rather than the NDP. Even if we do make that assumption, almost half of those who leave will still go to the NDP.

There's the rub, isn't it? Either you have good local representation through a riding-based system, or you have no local representation through a one-man-one-vote proportion system. The problem is that both systems are far from perfect. FPTP means that majority governments are almost always done with less that 50% of the popular vote in a multi-party system. PR means that you get to elect a federal government but have no say in who your local representative is and thus federal policies may not take the needs of your local area into account. Voting is always about compromise, isn't it? Sometimes you have to weigh your local needs against your national aspirations, and sometimes you don't. Politics are rarely straightforward, as I'm sure you've learned.

I agree that both systems are far from perfect, but let me ask you this: When is the last time that the whole of the federal government actually involved themselves in a certain limited geographical area just because the local MP told them that things need to change for that small geographical area? From what I've seen, never. When it comes to the federal government, everything is aggregated and all decisions apply to all. Focusing on one single area will not make a difference to those outside that area, so it isn't really an important issue at a federal level unless it involves a very large area or a large amount of the total population. Anything smaller than that is really an issue best addressed by the provincial/regional/municipal governments. So why should federal elections be based on local representation if they don't really take local matters into account, but rather they only take macro issues that affect everyone into account? Wouldn't a vote that was aggregated make more sense, since the issues addressed are aggregated as well?

For a number of reasons, mostly relating to how large and diverse our country is. If you want to implement a PR system, you will have to overcome hurdles such as convincing Quebecers that they don't need local representatives and that the rest of the country may have more influence over policies relating to their local affairs than they will. Not to mention that with PR we lose the ability to "adjust" the importance of some areas. Without a riding-based system, places like PEI and the Territories would have zero influence over the vote due to their low populations. The riding system guarantees them a dedicated voice in Parliament so their concerns are not overlooked. PR cannot accomplish that.

While I do agree that some Quebecers (mostly separatist) may be appalled at the idea of the government deciding for the whole of Canada, including Quebec, without looking for Quebec's special approval first, let us not forget that Quebec contains almost a quarter of the population of Canada. So I hardly think that they would have little influence on the way federal politics would be run. The only difference is that we wouldn't need to have Quebecer's special approval to do something.

You say that certain provinces would have little influence because of their low populations, but these same provinces also have the least seats in the current system. So what kind of influence do they really have with the current system, anyway? And why should we "adjust" political power in favor of a minority of the population to the detriment of the majority of the population? That would just lead to an inequality in power. And if the federal government doesn't really fix local problems, then why do we need any certain area to have more political power if what's decided will influence all equally? In that case, one area is really going to decide for another.

I agree we should have an elected Senate, but the current appointment system does not allow the PM to replace and appoint new Senators on a whim. Besides, the power the Senate wields is rather small, and usually rubber-stamps things regardless of party in power.

The Senate has the power to reject a bill passed by the House. That's no small power right there.
As for the PM, he may not have the power to name as he pleases, the Governor General has that power, but he does influence the decisions. Now, since most Governor General either have no clue about how politics are run and know very little themselves about the people that they are voting into Senate, it is really the PM that has the expert power in the decisions to appoint to Senate, not the Crown. Thus, the PM most likely has the higher influence in the decision, even though it is the Crown that makes the official decision. On the other hand, the Governor General does have the power to appoint at his/her own whim despite what the PM says. Now here's a political position that the people have nothing to say about: the person appointed by the Queen herself and nobody else. How is it in the interest of the people that the Crown gets to have a 50% influence on whether a bill gets passed or not?

So let me get this straight, you're angry because two political parties decided to voluntarily merge, and then people voted for that new party in a democratic election, and they won in the same fashion that every single government has ever won an election in this country? And they won more than once, demonstrating that their actions were actually increasing their support within the country's population?

Uh, yeah, how terrible and underhanded that they won a couple of fair elections. Gosh!

No, what the text you quoted says is that I'm angry at the fact that the Canadian Alliance got PC members to join their party and abandon the PC party's platform in favor of the Alliance's platform, which was different from the PC one, and in doing so, they pretty much reduced the option for right-winged voters to only one possible political platform that they could vote for: the former Alliance's platform. So, even though the voters may not agree with the Alliance's approach which is further off-center than that of the former PC, they can't vote for anything other than that and still stay on the same side of the political spectrum. The only other choice to voting Conservative for a right-wing voter is to vote for a left-wing platform ... see any problem with that? So even though a right-wing voter may be discontent with the Conservatives, they'd still have to vote for them because in their mind it is the lesser of all evils. Thus, the Conservatives will get all the votes of right-winged voters, even though not their all voters really agreed with most things in their platform in the first place. How well will the Conservatives reflect the actual desires of their own voter base, in that case? On the other hand, a left-winged voter will have much more to choose from in terms of political platforms, will be happier with their choice, but in the end will lose out to the right because the opinions of the left are so diversified.

So what now? The only way for the left to win is to unite. So the left unites, and upsets its own voters in the process too, but there's no other choice left for them, so they will also have to vote for only 1 left-winged platform, though they may think it's a crappy one. So what you'll be left with in the end is only 2 political parties fighting it out in parliament and one of them wins almost every time and even those who win every time aren't happy either. What you get is a total population that is never going to be truly happy with the way their country's going and can only be happy about the fact that at least their country's not going to either Communism or Fascism. "Well, it could be worse.." should never be the status quo in politics.

That's why I'm mad at the merger and at the Conservatives. They put the system in a position where the only way of improving it is to go downhill and make it worse in the end. Now, all we have to look forward to in the future is worse politics in Ottawa. Especially if the Bloc and Liberals both dissolve into the NDP. Don't get me wrong, I like the NDP and their platform, but if they're going to be the only left platform out there and there isn't really going to be any competition for it other than a completely opposite right platform, then there's no reason to improve anything, so the platform that once tried as hard as possible to attract voters would go stagnant, because the voters are going to vote for them anyway, no matter how bad a job they do.

So your solution, therefore, would have to be to restrict the rights of political parties to freely organize as they see fit, and instead introduce a system where the government defines what parties may and may not exist, to maintain an arbitrary balance of numbers of parties on either side of an imaginary left-right ideological line? Do you understand how ridiculous that is? Do you understand how undemocratic and unconstitutional that would be?

No, my proposal has nothing to do with freedom of organization, it has to do with competitive behavior. Because that's what politics is: competition. In a capitalist democracy, politics are just like business. It is the competition that drives the innovation, it is the competitive behaviour that brings change for the better and motivates those in the business world, to do something progressively better each and every time. So what do we have in the world of business to insure that this competitiveness is there in order for us, the consumer, to enjoy a world that is progressively getting better as each day goes by? Oh yes, anti-competitive laws. Laws that prohibit mergers that would give undue power in the market place to just a few firms, thus creating a monopoly or an oligopoly. But, you say, this is a free market, why shouldn't a free company do as it freely chooses in order to improve its bottom line? By becoming a monopoly, a company can then charge what it wants from its customers, including ripping them off. This wouldn't be a problem, except that people have a limited amount of resources to begin with, so if the company takes more and more of their income, the consumers would not have as much money to spend on other things, thus other industries will suffer because of the collapse of just one. This ripple effect will spread through the system uncontrollably, if left unchecked, and in the end will not end well either for the consumers or for the monopoly, because it would all come crashing down. The same thing is what I expect may happen to the political scene, as I described above. It's all going to come crashing down and it won't be good, either for the voters or the parties.

So, since anti-competition is already in the constitution, and it serves the system of free market (and thus democracy), how unconstitutional is it to provide the same regulation in the world of politics? What's wrong with having at least a minimum of 2 parties on either side of the spectrum? Nobody can stop them from collaborating with each other anyway, that's why we have so much talk of coalitions and one party siding with another. But at least in the end they'll still be poking each-others' eyes out for votes at the time of elections like they're supposed to.

And of course, the government should not regulate itself and punish itself whenever it does something bad, it doesn't work that way. But maybe a third political party who doesn't get a say in elections should be involved to settle these matters... like say ... the crown (if it can get its butt off the throne, actually get involved in politics and get some work done for a change).

It appears he humbly accepted control of the country, as given to him by the voters of that country in a fair democratic election. You may not like him personally (I don't either) but he is extremely intelligent and knows what will and won't fly in Parliament and in Canada. He is, to be completely honest, the best politician in Ottawa. He may not be the best person, but he is the best politician, and a stronger leader than his rivals. Sometimes that's what's needed, for better or for worse.

Well, I have to agree with you on many points, he is damn good at politics and I believe he definitely wouldn't be where he is now if he wasn't.

However, during the campaign all I heard from him was the whole "I want a majority" speech. It was only after he won the elections that he changed it to a "humble acceptance" speech. How does one swing his personal view so fast and still be rigid in his opinions?

And though I don't think he was the best leader out of all candidates, he definitely was stronger than most, and though I'm not into kicking a man while he's down, I'm glad the weaklings have been weeded out.

You really do whine about the party merger thing a lot. If the population of a country agrees with a party enough to give it power in a democratic election, why does the name of the party matter? You complain that they're not PCs anymore, which is pretty obvious considering they're not called the PCs. If the population disagreed with their platform they wouldn't vote for them, as simple as that.

It's not about the name, it's about the fact that the PCs completely changed their platform. See above remarks about choosing one of the lesser evils. People can disagree with a platform on the majority of the points, but they'll still choose it if all other platforms are even worse. Thus, they choose the best platform of all, but they're still not happy with it.

Sorry, "falsely leading the country?" If you win a majority government with 40%, if we magically switch to PR they still are in charge, just not a majority.

I apologize, that may have been a bad choice of words. What I meant was that a party leading with a majority of the seating but having less than a majority of the popular vote, if it did propose an electoral reform to PR, would have to admit to the citizens of the country that it has more influence in the government than it thinks it should have. Either way you look at it, a party would thus have to betray its own voters to their political opponents. That's the political suicide I was talking about.
And yes, they would still have a government, even though a minority and I'd be more content with that. I don't subscribe to the Steven Harper's idea that a minority government is a bad thing. I think it's best if a bill has to be scrutinized by all other views before it is finally passed. If you can't get half the House to agree on it, then it isn't really that good, is it?

Electoral reform would have to have a huge amount of support from all parties and on both a federal and provincial scale as it is a constitutional change, regardless of who is in power. Also, if it would reduce the majority to a minority and then need to be agreed upon by the losing parties, wouldn't it be easier to pass, as the losing parties would obviously want the increased influence afforded to them by the PR system? Or could it be that all the parties have realized that riding-based elections work just fine for the people and geography of Canada, and that electoral reform to a PR system would require a massive, expensive effort for terribly uncertain gain?

So, basically, what you're saying is that no left-wing or right-wing parties in Canada are interested in pretty much anything other than getting votes and power, regardless of party platform or ideology, and that long-term thinking is some kind of alien concept, so nobody will ever try to introduce electoral reform. No way, that sounds like politics, or something!

I think we can agree the current system is imperfect. I think we can agree that politics as an institution is imperfect and fraught with cronyism and short-sightedness. I doubt we will agree on what electoral system works the best, but frankly I'm glad that you've put some thought into how the system works and if/how it can be changed. If you fully believe that PR is a better system and are willing to work towards that goal and can find solutions to mitigate the system's problems, then good on you.

Well, that pretty much sums it up. In my opinion, history has dealt us a bad set of cards, and all we can do about it now is run with it. There's no way out, so we may as well make the best of it. But, even though I won't give up on it, I'll still say that the game's rigged and that it sucks.

 

[GM_IV]

What do you guys think of the NDP team from Quebec?

Obviously the news has covered the fact that most of them are inexperienced kids well enough since the election, but I just realized one of them was actually born in 1990. That really made me stop and think...

It's really going to be something these next four years. Harper with a majority on one side and Layton and his gang of kiddo misfits on the other.

That has always been a big fear among many Canadians of the Conservative or Liberal party persuasion should the NDP form a government. In Ontario when Bob Rae who was the NDP leader back then became premier with his majority government a lot of his newly elected MPPs were inexperienced and came from many different backgrounds quite a lot not even vaguely related to politics. While very loyal to the ideology they were less loyal when Bob Rae started realizing his original train of thought on economics started to go sour fast and decided to slow down NDP initiatives. The Ontario NDP has sort of been shattered between the Rae camp who were now more realist with Rae becoming Liberal and the anti-Rae camp which is what remains of the current NDP in the province. The big deficits in Ontario started under the NDP, this is why both Liberals and Conservatives use this line of attack against the NDP in every race saying they're irresponsible with the budget. Truth be told both have been guilty of adding to deficits, the only Liberals with true credibility on that front would be the Chretien and Martin Liberals who governed as if they were conservative with few programs but kept taxes like a liberal administration which is the quickest way to reduce debt and deficit.