• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
>Harrigan, why don't you let it all hang out and consolidate in one or two rebuttal posts vice a million individual posts?

I should be blamed for doing that first.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_cBhdRQgFI

And now, to move on....

ERC: Any new polling data?
 
Kirkhill said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_cBhdRQgFI

And now, to move on....

ERC: Any new polling data?

Awesome video.  Thanks.

Yes, ER, the polls, the polls...
 
Kirkhill said:
5 million litres equals 66 rail cars.  A train is something like 100 cars long with consideration being given to 250 car trains. 

http://cprailmmsub.blogspot.ca/2011/09/train-length-how-long-can-they-go.html

Bad things happen all the time.  You can't prevent them.  You can manage them after the fact.

You know, I was just thinking. Bad habit - and an indication of how slowly my grey cells spark.

This spill of 5,000,000 litres of oil (20,000 barrels) occurred 35 km southeast of Fort MacMurray.  In the middle of the oil sands.  Is it just me that finds that kind of weird?  Nexen is being criticized because it has returned some of the oil it took from the oil sands, to the oil sands.

Are we criticizing Nexen for removing the oil in the first place or are we criticizing them for returning it?

So anyway, Nexen has to clean up a spill of 20,000 barrels (0.016 km2) in the middle of the oil sands which cover an area of 141,000 km2, which God contaminated with 1,700,000,000,000 barrels of oil and which Nexen and its partners are cleaning up at the rate of 1,300,000 barrels per day.

Canada - cleaning up God's mess. 
 
Kirkhill said:
...
ERC: Any new polling data?

jollyjacktar said:
...
Yes, ER, the polls, the polls...


Sorry, fellows, nothing new from the sources I follow, but I did look back at a 10 day old ABACUS Data report and one bit stood out for me ...

Would a different government do better or worse?

We asked if an NDP or Liberal government would make things better or worse across 7 issues:

→ Fears of what would happen if the Liberals or NDP won are limited right now. Fewer than a third of voters think a change in government would make things worse on any of 7 issues.

→ When it comes to economic growth, 30% say the NDP would make things better, 25% say the NDP would make things worse, and 49% say things would be no different. The numbers for the Liberals are similar. 28% say a Liberal government would mean a stronger economy, 25% weaker, and 47% no different.

→ On job creation, 36% say the NDP would make things better, 31% say the Liberals would. Just 20% say things would be worse under either a Liberal or an NDP government.

→ On infrastructure, only 14% think an NDP government would be worse, 37% better. Only 17% think a Liberal government would be worse, 30% better.

→ On the environment, 34% say the Liberals would make things better, only 17% said it would be worse. For the NDP, 44% say things would be better, 12% worse.

→ On keeping Canada safe from terrorism, only 20% think an NDP government would make things worse, only 23% think that about the Liberals.

→ When it comes to Canada’s standing in the world, 31% say a Liberal government would make things better, only 21% worse. For the NDP the numbers are almost identical, 29% better, 21% worse.

→ On taxes, 32% say the Liberals would make things worse, 26% say the NDP would make things worse. Of the 7 items tested, this is the topic that most works in favour of the incumbents.
- See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/canadian-voters-lots-prefer-change-few-fear-it/#sthash.X7ckZmFx.dpuf

Slide181.png
Slide191.png


Two factors interest me:

    First: As ABACUS Data says (same article) "The Conservatives have labored to persuade voters that a change in government would weaken Canada’s economy, cost jobs, lower Canada’s standing in the world and increase the danger of
    terror attacks ... These numbers suggest that much of this effort has been ignored or discounted by voters.  The number of people who believe a change in government would make things worse is generally lower than the number of people
    who intend to vote Conservative;"
and

    Second: the public's imagination of how things might (or might not) change is shifting (since August 2014) in the NDP's favour (those numbers in brackets). We imagine ~ because we, Canadian voters, do not,
    really have any useful hard data upon which we might make a decision ~ that, on most issues, the NDP would make things somewhat better or, at least, they would not make them worse. In other words Canadians can, now, imagine a
    NDP government; the prospect doesn't appear to frighten most of us.

If I believed that Prime Minister Harper was positively Asian/Confucian in his long term strategic view (if I believed that he really wants to make Canada both "more conservative" and into a near mirror image of the UK's two party split) then I might believe that he wouldn't mind losing a election to the NDP. A NDP government would be a disaster of HUGE magnitude for the Liberals. I think the Liberals' internal civil war would flare again: the Turner, Martin, Manley Liberals, the blueish Liberals, would push to eject M Trudeau and replace him with someone from their own ranks (Scott Brison?), but the pinko Liberals (Trudeau, Dion, Trudeau) would want to stay the course and rebuild on the left. (I don't have an informed guess about who would win ... my heart would hope for the blue Liberals, my head says the pinko Liberals will prevail.) I suspect that a long term strategic Conservative leader might believe that a NDP government, no matter how intelligent and moderate the leader (and I believe M Mulcair is both) will, eventually and sooner rather than later, have to appease his left wing base and introduce some policies that will frighten the (broadly and generally) fiscally prudent Canadians. That will lead the way for a return to a Conservative administration and, maybe, will reduce the Liberals to perpetual third party status ~ à la the CCF/NDP from 1932 to 2011.

My guess, three months ahead of the election, is that Canadians' imaginations are more important than hard polling data (which, I repeat, will not matter until after Labour Day) and the rise of the NDP might play into conservative's long term, strategic plan.
 
I think the polling data will take a bump upwards for CPC, and will be reinforced each and every month towards the election.

Great timing!

If any of you that collect Child Tax Credit noticed, it just got bumped up by about 60 to 70%.........

Huge!!

Trudeau says he will do away with it, Mulclair is mute on it, but you try telling that to the millions of families out there that their gravy train is gonna go away.....
 
GAP said:
I think the polling data will take a bump upwards for CPC, and will be reinforced each and every month towards the election.

Great timing!

If any of you that collect Child Tax Credit noticed, it just got bumped up by about 60 to 70%.........

Huge!!

Trudeau says he will do away with it, Mulclair is mute on it, but you try telling that to the millions of families out there that their gravy train is gonna go away.....

"do away with it" is technically true, but a bit misleading.  According to the National Post, the Liberals would replace the CTC with a more generous one (paid for by increasing taxes for those making more than $200K it seems), for better or worse....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-unveils-his-plan-tax-hikes-on-the-rich-to-boost-child-care-benefits

Harrigan
 
Kirkhill said:
You know, I was just thinking. Bad habit - and an indication of how slowly my grey cells spark.

This spill of 5,000,000 litres of oil (20,000 barrels) occurred 35 km southeast of Fort MacMurray.  In the middle of the oil sands.  Is it just me that finds that kind of weird?  Nexen is being criticized because it has returned some of the oil it took from the oil sands, to the oil sands.

Are we criticizing Nexen for removing the oil in the first place or are we criticizing them for returning it?

So anyway, Nexen has to clean up a spill of 20,000 barrels (0.016 km2) in the middle of the oil sands which cover an area of 141,000 km2, which God contaminated with 1,700,000,000,000 barrels of oil and which Nexen and its partners are cleaning up at the rate of 1,300,000 barrels per day.

Canada - cleaning up God's mess.
Kirkhill,
Don't go using logic. The conversation on energy policy in the western world is now controlled by people who:
Don't understand/don't care about thermodynamics
Don't understand the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI)
Don't understand the concept of energy density.

In the Canadian case, we have a particularly loathesome group of people lined up against the oil industry that do not care to understand that Canada is a large, cold industrialized country that can never convert fully to wind and solar,  unless 10-20 million of us are just expected to to die in the process.

It is to weep....
 
Harrigan said:
"do away with it" is technically true, but a bit misleading.  According to the National Post, the Liberals would replace the CTC with a more generous one (paid for by increasing taxes for those making more than $200K it seems), for better or worse....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-unveils-his-plan-tax-hikes-on-the-rich-to-boost-child-care-benefits

Harrigan

granted, but better a bird in hand, etc......

Part of the effort of Trudeau's policy is to remove income splitting......now what demographic votes the most reliably, and also utilizes the income splitting the most......
 
SeaKingTacco said:
...10-20 million of us are just expected to to die in the process.

It is to weep....

There are groups out there that espouse the philosphy that the planet can only realistically support about 3 Bn humans. Anthing that reduces the population towards that number is fine with them (as long as they're not amongst those reduced).

But that's a coversation for the other tread...
 
ModlrMike said:
There are groups out there that espouse the philosphy that the planet can only realistically support about 3 Bn humans. Anthing that reduces the population towards that number is fine with them (as long as they're not amongst those reduced).

But that's a coversation for the other tread...

I disagree. The attitude towards energy policy displayed by the NDP, Liberals and Greens is magical thinking at best.

Inexpensive and abundant energy is central to having a modern, industrialized complex society. It cannot be done on solar panels and wind mills.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I disagree. The attitude towards energy policy displayed by the NDP, Liberals and Greens is magical thinking at best.

Inexpensive and abundant energy is central to having a modern, industrialized complex society. It cannot be done on solar panels and wind mills.

Quebec and Ontario are happy to wave their green laurels because of their electrical supply - based on hydro and nuclear power
 
Flooded countries, dispossessed natives,  plants that cant be repaired or replaced and glow in the dark waste they still cant figure out how to manage.

Phukkem and the high horse they rode in on.
 
The change in the NDP "better/worse" numbers is the interesting point.  Otherwise, what I see is that about 1/3 of Canadians believe either the NDP or LPC would be better than the CPC - which might just be the "floor" for the number of Canadians who will never believe anything good of the CPC.
 
Kirkhill said:
Quebec and Ontario are happy to wave their green laurels because of their electrical supply - based on hydro and nuclear power
 
Flooded countries, dispossessed natives,  plants that cant be repaired or replaced and glow in the dark waste they still cant figure out how to manage.

Phukkem and the high horse they rode in on.


Good points.  Ontario, in its Green Movement, has probably run into 'institutional incompetence and stupidity'.  Expensive and questionable renewable resources like 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' placing the province further in debt, while existing Hydro dams like Niagara Falls generating station and nuclear power plants are being taken off line.  The environmentalists squashing the suggestions that nuclear waste be buried in the Canadian Shield under Chalk River Laboratories, or the Garbage reclamation proposal put forward by the Town of Kirkland Lake to handle Toronto garbage, are keeping Ontario, and Canada, from finding creative and workable solutions to environmental issues.  The environmental protection movements are great at complaining and closing things down, but unable and unwilling to find creative solutions that are affordable and not going to contribute to massive debt.
If you look closely at the spokesmen for these movements, they are great at rallying the environmentalist fanatics, while being hypocrites themselves. 
Perhaps it is time to turn a deaf ear to the Environmental Movements.  We are making great inroads in saving the environment.  The Great Lakes are now cleaner than they were fifty years ago.  Changes like that do not happen over night.  Environmental protection legislation has been enacted and modern technologies are creating cleaner processes that are much more efficient for industry to manufacture necessities.  Unfortunately Environmentalists are blind to what modern society needs to survive, ignoring the fact that oil is what produces nearly everything we use.  Time to put them on pause or ignore.  (perhaps we should point out the oncoming Ice Age)
 
The great hindrance in the "green" debate is the people who think in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.  They don't grasp the quantities of energy to be dealt with, and they don't grasp the quantities of capital misallocated - if they even understand that the return on some investments is very poor and leaves us facing the same issues with fewer resources.
 
Brad Sallows said:
The great hindrance in the "green" debate is the people who think in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.  They don't grasp the quantities of energy to be dealt with, and they don't grasp the quantities of capital misallocated - if they even understand that the return on some investments is very poor and leaves us facing the same issues with fewer resources.

Not just "Greens", but virtually anything to do with Socialism in its various forms can usually be identified through the innumerate people espousing it. Why do you think the Greeks or US Blue States are bankrupt, after paying out far more in social programs, government pensions and benefits than they are taking in (rhetorical question). The only remotely "quantitative" trial balloons I have seen WRT proposed spending from either the LPC or NDP involves drawing monies from the CPP to pay for Liberal spending proposals and both parties increasing taxes on the one segment of the population with the ability and will to take measures to avoid these tax increases.

Anyone who thinks about these things for more than a 30 second sound bite will be alarmed, to say the least, but both parties and the various enablers who support them are counting on the fact that "low information voters" and "severely normal" (i.e. disengaged from politics unless it directly affects them in an 'In your face' way) will not put in the few moments of analysis needed to understand these proposals fully, and most people will react in a visceral and emotional manner, rather than a rational one, to electioneering (hence the power of negative ads). The way the ideas of "income inequality" have taken root is perhaps the greatest example; Canada has a much lower rate of "inequality" than other G-8 nations, and the data completely contradicts the "narrative", but guess which ideas are dominating?

Of course the other thing which helps the innumerate put one over on the majority is the fact that these are slow motion disasters, with a long delay between the flash and the bang. It has taken a decade for the Liberals to demolish Ontario's manufacturing base, and the full damage of escalating energy bills is still in process. Pointing out that Dalton McGuinty started these things in process will be essentially meaningless to most people, much like suggesting the Young Dauphin's spending proposals (such as we know of them) will adversely impact us in 5 years time will probably not get any traction. (In this case, Harrington's totally counterintuitive suggestion that the LPC will be trying to run on their past accomplishments of balanced budgets in the 1990's while simultaneously proposing massive spending increases between 2015 and 2020 will probably be both true and effective).

So the battle is not really between looking at the objective merits of any particular parties platforms (and if we are honest, most of the 19 registered political parities capable of running in this election will never even get a look from anyone), but rather how each party can manipulate people's emotions, attitudes, behaviours and perceptions.
 
Thucydides said:
Not just "Greens", but virtually anything to do with Socialism in its various forms can usually be identified through the innumerate people espousing it. Why do you think the Greeks or US Blue States are bankrupt, after paying out far more in social programs, government pensions and benefits than they are taking in (rhetorical question). The only remotely "quantitative" trial balloons I have seen WRT proposed spending from either the LPC or NDP involves drawing monies from the CPP to pay for Liberal spending proposals and both parties increasing taxes on the one segment of the population with the ability and will to take measures to avoid these tax increases.

Anyone who thinks about these things for more than a 30 second sound bite will be alarmed, to say the least, but both parties and the various enablers who support them are counting on the fact that "low information voters" and "severely normal" (i.e. disengaged from politics unless it directly affects them in an 'In your face' way) will not put in the few moments of analysis needed to understand these proposals fully, and most people will react in a visceral and emotional manner, rather than a rational one, to electioneering (hence the power of negative ads). The way the ideas of "income inequality" have taken root is perhaps the greatest example; Canada has a much lower rate of "inequality" than other G-8 nations, and the data completely contradicts the "narrative", but guess which ideas are dominating?

Of course the other thing which helps the innumerate put one over on the majority is the fact that these are slow motion disasters, with a long delay between the flash and the bang. It has taken a decade for the Liberals to demolish Ontario's manufacturing base, and the full damage of escalating energy bills is still in process. Pointing out that Dalton McGuinty started these things in process will be essentially meaningless to most people, much like suggesting the Young Dauphin's spending proposals (such as we know of them) will adversely impact us in 5 years time will probably not get any traction. (In this case, Harrington's totally counterintuitive suggestion that the LPC will be trying to run on their past accomplishments of balanced budgets in the 1990's while simultaneously proposing massive spending increases between 2015 and 2020 will probably be both true and effective).

So the battle is not really between looking at the objective merits of any particular parties platforms (and if we are honest, most of the 19 registered political parities capable of running in this election will never even get a look from anyone), but rather how each party can manipulate people's emotions, attitudes, behaviours and perceptions.

This subject isn't my forte, but I'm not sure the stats are definitive either way on Income Inequality. 

Seems that while Canada is better than the US and UK in all charts, and sometimes slightly better than Italy and Japan in others, it is worse than the rest of the "First World" after redistribution (through taxes and transfers).  I notice that some of the charts (like the NP one below) point to the before taxes and transfers figure, which doesn't seem all that relevant to me as we exist in a world with taxes and transfers.  Surely it is the inequality (if it exists) after taxes and transfers that matters.  Also interesting to see the very different trendlines between the Anglosphere countries and the rest of the world.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/income-inequality/
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/840011/income-gap-between-the-rich-and-poor-increasing-faster-in-canada-than-in-the-united-states
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-what-is-income-inequality

What that data doesn't identify (probably because there is no firm answer), is what is the "ideal" level of income inequality is.  Presumably it would be a different number depending on where one's political persuasion lies.

Harrigan

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger.  I am just providing the links.  I don't have a degree in Economics nor have a balanced a Federal Budget....  ;)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Although this story, from Reuters, is about Europe it should provide a cautionary note for those who favour the sort of proportional representation that Israel and several European nations have.

We Canadians should all remember the financial crisis of 2008: the (Conservative) government of the day wanted a cautious, muted response; the (Liberal and NDP) opposition demanded (as they can in a hung parliament (minority situation)) strong stimulus spending. You can argue the merits of each case until the cows come home but, I think (hope) most will agree that a crisis is when "selection and maintenance of the aim" (a solid, coherent, policy) is paramount and that's the situation that proportional representation makes difficult. Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants the eurozone to survive, as is; her finance minister, Wolfgabg Schaeuble favours reform, beginning with a Grexit: a deep policy division. Deep policy divisions are the very nature of coalition governments which, in turn, are the very natural outcome of proportional representation.

We, rightfully, give credit to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien/Finance Minister Paul Martin for dragging Canada out of the fiscal hole that another Liberal (Pierre Trudeau) dug for us. In fairness there were three forces pressing on those two men:

    1. Prime Minister Chrétien's "basic instincts" ~ he's a natural, small town fiscal conservative;

    2. Paul Martin's bureaucrats ~ who convinced him, on solid evidence, to make a 180o emotional course correction and abandon his father's (and his own) social agenda in favour of fiscal responsibility; and

    3. Public opinion ~ which, thanks to the "good work" (fear mongering) of the Mulroney government, had shifted, radically, away from Trudeauesque free spending and towards fiscal responsibility.

Having arrived at a coherent policy position, the Chrétien government was able to act because it had a solid majority and didn't need to appease coalition partners.

IF Canada moves towards proportional representation, as M Trudeau wants, we will, always have coalitions (the last time any one party got 50% of the popular vote in a general election was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney's Conservatives scratched out a bare 50.03% of the ballots cast (only 73% of the electorate voted), neither Jean Chrétien's (in the 1990s/2000s) nor Pierre Trudeau's Liberals (in the 1960s, 70s and 80s) ever got 50% of the votes cast, before Mulroney the last 50%+ result was John Diefenbaker, also a Conservative, in 1958).


Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is more, from an unexpected source, on the political perils (for winners) of proportional representation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ndp-may-want-to-reconsider-its-stance-on-electoral-reform/article25548883/
gam-masthead.png

NDP may want to reconsider its stance on electoral reform

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jul. 18, 2015

Federal New Democrats were cock-a-hoop with joy at the sweeping victory of their provincial cousins in Alberta. They would have been pleased, but somewhat less joyous, had Alberta been using the electoral system that the federal NDP espouses.

The Alberta NDP got 41 per cent of the vote, but 62 per cent of the seats, a crushing legislative majority. No deals. No coalitions. Just four years of an NDP majority under the existing first-past-the-post voting system – the one the federal NDP (and Liberals) wants to banish.

The federal NDP favours something called mixed-member proportional representation, akin to the New Zealand system whereby every elector gets two votes, one for a local MP, another for a party list. (MMP was once recommended by the Law Reform Commission of Canada.) Says the New Zealand website explaining MMP, election results generally produce a Parliament with parties whose share of the seats “is about the same as its share of the party vote.”

MMP and other proportional-representation systems are quite democratic in the sense of matching shares of votes and seats. What would have happened to Premier Rachel Notley and her New Democrats under MMP?

The Alberta NDP, lacking a majority of seats under MMP, would have needed to cobble together an arrangement, perhaps even with the party it defeated, the Progressive Conservatives; or, it would have remained in opposition. Or it could have tried to govern month-to-month as a minority.

How could the victorious NDP have remained in opposition? Under MMP, the Progressive Conservatives, with 28 per cent of the vote, and the Wildrose Party, with 24 per cent, would have together eclipsed easily the NDP’s 41 per cent share of the popular vote.

Since these two parties likely had more in common than either had with the NDP, they could have ganged up to defeat the NDP and formed a coalition with a solid majority for the next four years. Or, they could have had a looser arrangement to keep the NDP out of power, because together they would have had a parliamentary majority.

The provincial NDP would have howled at this prospect. They would have claimed, “We won the largest share of the popular vote. We deserve to govern and not be overthrown by the second and third parties.” Under the existing system, yes; under MMP, not necessarily.

Maybe the NDP could have stitched together some kind of joint statement of policies with the Progressive Conservatives, but their agreement certainly would not have looked like the policies the NDP has already introduced courtesy of its majority government. Or, the NDP could have refused any agreement with another party, informal or otherwise, and tried to govern as a minority.

This possibility of the second and third parties getting together to overthrow the party with the largest share of the popular vote and seats is exactly what the federal NDP might face after the Oct. 19 election. The NDP is already talking privately of joining with the Liberals to defeat the Conservatives should that party have only a minority of parliamentary seats.

It would appear, the Alberta results notwithstanding, that Canadians are heading for a debate, if not a change, to the existing first-past-the-post system. The NDP has favoured proportional representation for years. Now, the federal Liberals declare this should be the last election held under the existing system.

They want a national debate on proportional representation or preferential voting, as in Australia, where voters mark their ballots in order of preference for candidates. Ontario has announced a favourable opinion for this method of voting in municipal elections, but not provincial ones.

In Prince Edward Island, Liberal Premier Wade MacLauchlan just handed a legislative committee a White Paper on Democratic Renewal that includes reviewing PR and preferential voting.

Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil says he’s interested in exploring a preferential-voting system.

Schemes for changing first-past-the-post have been put to electors in British Columbia, Ontario and PEI. They all lost – in Ontario by a whopping 63 per cent to 37 per cent. Ideas for change were debated and died in the legislatures of Quebec and New Brunswick.

Around the country’s barbecues this summer, start flipping over ideas for a new voting system. While flipping, do ponder the NDP’s “majority” victory in Alberta and what would have happened to that “majority” under MMP.


I think that there is room for some vote reform: specifically for a preferential voting system which can, I believe, be made clear and simple, still maintains single member constituency elections but does require electronic vote counting.

    (On a preferential ballot you might, for example, see a list of names each with, say, three boxes beside each: you may enter a total of up to six s for a maximum of three candidates; You may give your most preferred
      candidate as many as (but no more than) three ✘s and one or two (up to a total maximum of six) to two others. (The electronic system would assign values to your ✘s ~ one ✘=1 two ✘s = 3 and three ✘s = 7 (which preserves the "advantage"
      of being the preferred candidate.) You could, theoretically, give only three ✘s, maybe to three marginal or fringe candidates as a sign of "none of the above." You could, also, give three ✘s to one candidate and none to any others.)
 
So Mr.Simpson posits that because of one favourable provincial result in Alberta, the NDP should consider throwing away a policy plank that has distinguished them from the Liberals and Conservatives for years (decades)?  I would imagine the NDP recognizes that it is not likely to become the "natural governing party" on the basis of one good (provincial) result, and MMP is a far bigger gain for the NDP overall that more than offsets the potential "loss" in Alberta.

Besides, after all the recriminations after the Danielle Smith affair and the defections, I would imagine that Brian Jean would be ON the barbeque if he were to turn around and join/prop up the PC's after the election.

Harrigan
 
Harrigan said:
So Mr.Simpson posits that because of one favourable provincial result in Alberta, the NDP should consider throwing away a policy plank that has distinguished them from the Liberals and Conservatives for years (decades)?  I would imagine the NDP recognizes that it is not likely to become the "natural governing party" on the basis of one good (provincial) result, and MMP is a far bigger gain for the NDP overall that more than offsets the potential "loss" in Alberta.

Political power corrupts.  Once in power its a simple fact that the NDP would do whatever it takes to stay there, and that would include the belief that the can consistently win elections, especially if the Liberals die.  I will love watching the fall of the party's "holier than thou" attitude over time.  It will make for fine political soap opera.  If they don't change their attitude they will not find themselves in power very long as the Liberal and Torys have no problem hitting below the belt.  Right now the NDP seem content to let 3rd party advertising do their dirty work for them.

Mr. Simpson also posits that Canadians DON'T want a change in the political system.  Every time it goes to referendum it dies.  Horribly.  By our very nature people fear change, especially in Canada.  Don't like thinking about disturbing things like nasty military folks killing people or politicians arguing.  We are so non-confrontational as a people its almost a joke.  Changing politics to be more confrontational and dramatic is not in our collective DNA.  And the people who do vote don't want to lose their power.  So they like things the way they are.

As well many here in Canada come from countries where some similar sort of alternative voting is in place and don't trust it.  Political backroom deals and all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top