Politics in 2018

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OK, fair on the "country" thing. But it still doesn't work in making Canada into a single party state:

Take the 7 millions souls of the GTA out of the Canadian equation and Quebec's importance in the new mix becomes 30% and BC becomes 17%. Neither of these two provinces are exactly conservative lands. Add the maritime provinces, which are pretty Liberal, and you can still have a good alternation of the two major parties (with Quebec dictating which way it goes in most cases, thus acquiring an even greater influence on federal affairs and causing more alienation of the prairies provinces).

 

[mariomike]

OK, fair on the "country" thing.

Thank-you. That is what I was replying to,

"Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes."

But it still doesn't work in making Canada into a single party state:

I said,

"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."

 

[PuckChaser]

"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."

Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

 

[MilEME09]

Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Thus electoral reform never went through, to much to loose for the libs

 

[mariomike]

It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario would be good enough for me. 

#GTAexit

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.

My reply,

"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."

Or, as someone else put it,

I am willing to bet that, after being "freed" from them Libs, they would fracture into the "very conservatives" vs "less conservatives", etc. etc.

"Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario." 

 

[PuckChaser]

Thus electoral reform never went through, to much to loose for the libs

It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.

 

[MilEME09]

It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.

Ah right, I almost forgot about that, considering most Canadians and the opposition favored proportional rep

 

[Furniture]

You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.

This is the part I am surprised more people aren't upset by. The rest of us have essentially taken a pay cut so that the Liberals can buy votes in the upcoming election. This posting can end any day now, I'll gladly sail every month to leave this province...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Electoral reform is elusive because:
1. The Liberals, as the "centre" party, favour a transferable vote.
2. The NDP, as a not-centre party without enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour proportional rep.
3. The CPC, as a not-centre party with enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour FPTP.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.

And that's the real issue. The reality is the middle class are the ones squeezed by raises in the minimum wage.

Thsee are just attempts at making equality of outcome vice equality of opportunity. But... it's cheaper than properly funding schools 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Electoral reform is elusive because:
1. The Liberals, as the "centre" party, favour a transferable vote.
2. The NDP, as a not-centre party without enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour proportional rep.
3. The CPC, as a not-centre party with enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour FPTP.

Indeed. The last poll I can find indicates that 48% of Canadians want electoral reform while only 35% don't, with the remainder in the unsure category. So, the majority would presumably be weighted in favour of change from the FPTP system, which is in line with the 63% of Canadians who voted for parties who wanted electoral reform. One point though- I would argue that the CPC is in fact a centre party, though centre-right. Canadians are very heavily centrist (77% support either liberal or CPC at the moment) with the, in reality, slight differences between conservatives and liberals making the difference between the two.

Personally, I believe in one person one vote and making an actual choice vice the ranked ballot system which essentially allows one to have their cake and eat it too. The best way to get representation then, to me, is the FPTP as though in principle the proportional representation model is the most fair in that each vote counts no matter the location, it kills any sort of party accountability to the voters. It also effectively creates a permanent minority government, which isn't beneficial. I would have preferred that there be an elected senate like in the US to allow for effective breaking of the current "elected dictatorship" that exists in a majority government.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2606/one-half-see-need-for-electoral-reform/

It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.

Disagree with this though. I think that the real issue was that 65% of Canadians polled wanted a referendum on any electoral reform system, and the Liberals weren't interested in going down that road. In reality, with a majority the Liberals could have simply passed an electoral reform bill but acquiesced. I would suggest then that the likely requirement for a referendum created a "juice not worth the squeeze" sort of scenario. Naturally each party will do what is best for their party- that's why the CPC supports FPTP so heavily as they wouldn't have a chance of a majority in a ranked ballot and would be in a permanent minority situation in proportional.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Oh, oh...I know this one.

Is it Donald Trump?

 

[ballz]

that's why the CPC supports FPTP so heavily as they wouldn't have a chance of a majority in a ranked ballot and would be in a permanent minority situation in proportional.

That really depends on how the ranked ballot is set up.

I kind of think a ranked ballot is the best representation of a population's sentiment. However, we recently saw a ranked ballot experiment in Canada which failed, in my opinion, to represent it's constituents and it made me think twice of daring to play with electoral reform.

I'm talking about the CPC leadership election. Now, full disclosure, I was and am 100% behind Maxime Bernier. I don't think the thoughts I've had on this are centred around sour grapes but to deny that sour grapes could affect my ability to be objective would just be dishonest with myself; it's certainly possible.

However, the CPC leadership election used a rank ballot, and what I thought was really poorly thought out and really resulted in a leader who I think does not have the support of the party from the get go, was the fact that a 12th place vote, in the end, was valued the same as a 1st place vote. This really doesn't make sense, since a 1st place vote means you at least, more than anyone, represented the voter's views. A 12th place vote means the voter clearly did not connect very well with you, doesn't have much support for your views, and didn't think you very worthy of their vote... yet, in the CPC election, that 12th place vote was valued the same as a 1st place vote. I can't believe anyone actually even filled out their ballot all the way to 13 candidates to be honest.... they clearly didn't think very highly of that candidate.

*Thought Experiment*
In the federal system, there are only a few parties that really have a platform at all to connect with voters (changing more and more with social media). A third or fourth place vote being worth the same as a 1st place vote, we might as well just put them on a roulette wheel. But I could see something like 2nd place votes being worth 33.3% of a first place vote.... If you can get 39% of first place votes, and 37% of second place votes, I can see how you have the support to govern with majority power. However, if you have 38% of first place votes, but no second place votes.... you'd have to govern with a minority because clearly the other 62% of the population don't have much support for you.

This way, we kind of get the benefit of FPTP in which majorities are attainable and we give the government the leash it needs to do it's job.... but we also ensure a party that is despised by half the population doesn't get that same length of leash.
[/Thinking out loud]

But like I said, after the CPC election, I'd hesitate to dare playing with electoral reform...

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That really depends on how the ranked ballot is set up.

I kind of think a ranked ballot is the best representation of a population's sentiment. However, we recently saw a ranked ballot experiment in Canada which failed, in my opinion, to represent it's constituents and it made me think twice of daring to play with electoral reform.

I'm talking about the CPC leadership election. Now, full disclosure, I was and am 100% behind Maxime Bernier. I don't think the thoughts I've had on this are centred around sour grapes but to deny that sour grapes could affect my ability to be objective would just be dishonest with myself; it's certainly possible.

However, the CPC leadership election used a rank ballot, and what I thought was really poorly thought out and really resulted in a leader who I think does not have the support of the party from the get go, was the fact that a 12th place vote, in the end, was valued the same as a 1st place vote. This really doesn't make sense, since a 1st place vote means you at least, more than anyone, represented the voter's views. A 12th place vote means the voter clearly did not connect very well with you, doesn't have much support for your views, and didn't think you very worthy of their vote... yet, in the CPC election, that 12th place vote was valued the same as a 1st place vote. I can't believe anyone actually even filled out their ballot all the way to 13 candidates to be honest.... they clearly didn't think very highly of that candidate.

*Thought Experiment*
In the federal system, there are only a few parties that really have a platform at all to connect with voters (changing more and more with social media). A third or fourth place vote being worth the same as a 1st place vote, we might as well just put them on a roulette wheel. But I could see something like 2nd place votes being worth 33.3% of a first place vote.... If you can get 39% of first place votes, and 37% of second place votes, I can see how you have the support to govern with majority power. However, if you have 38% of first place votes, but no second place votes.... you'd have to govern with a minority because clearly the other 62% of the population don't have much support for you.

This way, we kind of get the benefit of FPTP in which majorities are attainable and we give the government the leash it needs to do it's job.... but we also ensure a party that is despised by half the population doesn't get that same length of leash.
[/Thinking out loud]

But like I said, after the CPC election, I'd hesitate to dare playing with electoral reform...

In the proposed system, each first place vote would be counted as such and if a majority of constituents voted for one candidate he or she woukd be the winner regardless of subsequent votes. Only if less than 50% of people voted for one candidate woukd a run off occur where the number of second ranked ballots woukd be counted to see if a majority occurred, and so on. In the CPC election example noted, this would have led to a more equitable result.

Tbh, I don't all out disagree with proportional.  My support for FPTP or proportional is rooted in a belief that people need to make choices. Liberal or NDP? CPC or Liberal? Proportional kind of allows a cake and eat it too situation to me, but with potentially interesting results- for example, I think more liberal voters would see CPC rather than liberal as the better second choice and many NDP would see green, not liberal as a second choice. To many left and right voters there isn't a big difference between CPC and Liberals.

Edit to add- Under the proportional system many believe that the predicted outcome based on voting trends would have seen a closer election result as follows:

- Liberals at 135 seats
- CPC at 108 seats
- NDP at 67 seats
- BQ 16
- Green 12

Under the preferential ballot, the 308 site predicted the following:

- Liberals at 224
- CPC at 61
- NDP at 50
- BQ at 2
- Green at 1

 

[PuckChaser]

2 of 3 ethics investigations for the Finance Minister have cleared him. The investigation into C-27 sponsorship is still ongoing, however it will be with the new appointee Mario Dion.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ethics-czar-clears-morneau-over-sale-of-shares-1.3750558

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

You're wrong here- all partisans, left or right, want a one party state and can be seeing their various rantings. For each "libtard" there's a "redneck". The right is as guilty as the left.

 

[ModlrMike]

The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 338 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.

 

[ballz]

In the proposed system, each first place vote would be counted as such and if a majority of constituents voted for one candidate he or she woukd be the winner regardless of subsequent votes. Only if less than 50% of people voted for one candidate woukd a run off occur where the number of second ranked ballots woukd be counted to see if a majority occurred, and so on. In the CPC election example noted, this would have led to a more equitable result.

I'm not sure I follow... if you are saying what I think you are saying, that *is* what happened in the CPC election... and it led to, I believe, a result that does not represent the true sentiment of the voters.

The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 330 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.

I like the idea of a representation by population (FPTP) in the HoC for all 338* ridings, however, legislators are not able to be very independent
and actually represent their constituents in our system.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 330 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.

I don't believe it misses this point in 2 of 3. In ranked ballots it's still at a riding level and the rankings only matter if there isn't a majority on the first ballot itself. This system only changes the specifics of how riding ballots are counted, not the system per set,  since it's really still FPTP for a majority

 

[mariomike]

You're wrong here- all partisans, left or right, want a one party state and can be seeing their various rantings.

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.