Support NeoGAF

[Simon Belmont]

There's a lot of technicallys that haven't really been true since the dawn of the Westminster Parliament, they mean roughly nothing to how things really are. That our 'representatives' represent their ridings on any but an extremely abstract, all-or-nothing, level is fact. The technical notion that they represent our needs and expectations of parliaments is just that, a technicality long overridden.

First of all, Chuck Cadman.

Secondly that's just not true. Maybe you've got a shit MP but mine have all been reasonably well engaged in the community, even the ones I didn't vote for.

But even if that were the case how would be addition of more people to parliament with no ties to any community help? They would just be party cheerleaders. The gallery has enough of that already.

 

[maharg]

There are always exceptions that prove the rule.

Being engaged in the community is not the same as representing you in parliament. Their job is to vote, not to be a valet to their riding (which really amounts more to being outreach for their party than anything else).

And I'm not suggesting doing that at all. As I said, there are ways to make parliament reflect the actual will of the electorate without detaching representatives from their votes. Again, multi-member ridings.

All of this aside, you haven't really demonstrated that they are anything but party cheerleaders as it is. And they're party cheerleaders being elected by narrower and narrower targeting of votes every election these days.

I have to ask this of all proponents of the status quo: At what popular vote win does a majority government cease to have legitimacy for you? We've had a majority government come out of a sub-40% win twice in the last two decades. Will it still be legitimate when it's 35%? 30%? I can't believe there isn't some barrier under which you don't think a government deserves almost absolute power.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Being engaged in the community is not the same as representing you in parliament. Their job is to vote, not to be a valet to their riding.

This is just silly. You're arguing against interacting with constituents in a weird way. If your community feels their MP is voting contrary to their interests surely they would be voted out. If they don't that's not a fault of the system.

If your problem is with the big two parties, why would you hand them a bunch of cushy jobs to give out? To gain one or two fringe MPs? Couple dippers?

 

[maharg]

This is just silly. You're arguing against interacting with constituents in a weird way. If your community feels their MP is voting contrary to their interests surely they would be voted out. If they don't that's not a fault of the system.

Except that they can win their riding on, just like their parties, less than 50% of the vote. Yeah, they might piss off 60% of their riding but damn that 35% likes them so much it just doesn't matter. Democracy yay! It's cute how our system is fractally abusive, but it's not exactly producing results that align with what people actually want.

If your problem is with the big two parties, why would you hand them a bunch of cushy jobs to give out? To gain one or two fringe MPs? Couple dippers?

I don't even know what you think you're saying here. It makes no sense.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Except that they can win their riding on, just like their parties, less than 50% of the vote. Yeah, they might piss off 60% of their riding but damn that 35% likes them so much it just doesn't matter. Democracy yay! It's cute how our system is fractally abusive, but it's not exactly producing results that align with what people actually want.

That sucks, but if the MP were pissing enough people off they would rally behind somebody. Hell, or go through the riding association like with Rob Anders.

On the other hand, if every riding is given two candidates you'll have scenarios where one party dominates, and second banana gets in on 10% of the vote. You could have a scenario where the candidate who is rejected by voters is still given a seat because the area has a poor third party showing. It's just trading one set of problems for another.

I don't even know what you think you're saying here. It makes no sense.

Look at the people who the Liberals and Conservatives have put in the senate and get ready for them to get 70% of these new seats. Can't wait.

Also let us not forget the only reason we don't think the NDP are shit heads is because they don't have a long enough record of ruling.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I just want to be clear here: I'm centre-left to left. Hell, I want to see a guaranteed minimum income. These past few years have been tough for me, politically.

But I still think on average the system gets it right. The party with the most support wins, with the possible exception of Joe Clark beating Trudeau.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Ontario election time? Only one source reporting so far.

http://ontarionewswatch.com/onw-news.html?id=733

 

[Azih]

If your problem is with the big two parties, why would you hand them a bunch of cushy jobs to give out?

This is am assumption that does not hold true under either STV or MMP systems.

To gain one or two fringe MPs? Couple dippers?

The problem is that it's not 'one or two' it's a whole hell of a lot. And they aren't 'fringe' either, most forms of PR used by the majority of democracies in the world today including almost all of the ones that are less corrupt than Canada would decrease the number of Libs and Conservatives and increase the number of NDP and put in about ten or so Greens. It would make it impossible for the big two to earn unwarranted majorities and have to negotiate with other parties to get legislation done. That's far saner than the temporary emperors we elect today. The makeup of the federal parliament would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT right now with the Cons not having majority power.

Your arguments seem to rest on unwarranted assumptions and crazy distortions man (saying it's about adding a few fringe MPs especially. Where did that come from?). I have a problem with one party having full and complete power even though more than 50% of voters would rather have someone else representing them. And I have a problem with people stuck in safe ridings whose votes are meaningless (like the 33% of people in Alberta that don't vote Conservative. Don't they deserve representation?) Dismissing all of this as some sort of 'fringe sentiment' is baseless and bizarre.

 

[firehawk12]

It'll never happen in a million years, but having a directly elected executive would help address the representation problem. Of course, we see that it has its own set of problems in America, but if you lived in a riding that is destined to go one way, then at least you could feel that your vote counted when you picked the "President" that you wanted.

At this point, I figure we'll see an elected Senate before any real voting reforms. Which probably means when hell freezes over. lol

 

[maharg]

It'll never happen in a million years, but having a directly elected executive would help address the representation problem. Of course, we see that it has its own set of problems in America, but if you lived in a riding that is destined to go one way, then at least you could feel that your vote counted when you picked the "President" that you wanted.

At this point, I figure we'll see an elected Senate before any real voting reforms. Which probably means when hell freezes over. lol

Elected senate would take constitutional reforms. The method of voting for the house, on the other hand, is decided by the house.

Not sure why you think senate reform is more likely given that, since pretty much every party is pretty much dead set on not reopening the constitution.

 

[firehawk12]

Elected senate would take constitutional reforms. The method of voting for the house, on the other hand, is decided by the house.

Not sure why you think senate reform is more likely given that, since pretty much every party is pretty much dead set on not reopening the constitution.

Wait, is there a difference between how the Federal constitution is made up and how the Provinces decide to make electoral changes? Why did BC and Ontario waste money on referendums that were doomed to fail? Why not just unilaterally pass STV/MMP/whatever? We could have had electoral reform without going through the idiot public? That makes this all the more tragic.

 

[diaspora]

I just want to be clear here: I'm centre-left to left. Hell, I want to see a guaranteed minimum income. These past few years have been tough for me, politically.

But I still think on average the system gets it right. The party with the most support wins, with the possible exception of Joe Clark beating Trudeau.

I voted to make this party policy

Spoiler

and succeeded.

Elections are about the community expressing their will, not the individual.

IRV keeps this, but ensures that every riding victory is done so with a majority (50%+) mandate.

(like the 33% of people in Alberta that don't vote Conservative. Don't they deserve representation?)

They lost. So, no.

 

[firehawk12]

They lost. So, no.

Well, presumably they do, which is why there's so much angst about how parties with less than 50% of the votes in the country can hold majority governments. I'd be fine with IRV, since you can still waste your vote by voting for the MP you want to show support but also vote "tactically" to give the candidate that realistically has a chance of winning the chance to win. Although all that does is just pay lip service to marginal candidates more than anything else.

 

[diaspora]

Well, presumably they do, which is why there's so much angst about how parties with less than 50% of the votes in the country can hold majority governments. I'd be fine with IRV, since you can still waste your vote by voting for the MP you want to show support but also vote "tactically" to give the candidate that realistically has a chance of winning the chance to win. Although all that does is just pay lip service to marginal candidates more than anything else.

What it does is it ensures that all representatives are elected with majority mandates. Also, no they don't assume representation if no community wants them.

 

[firehawk12]

What it does is it ensures that all representatives are elected with majority mandates. Also, no they don't assume representation if no community wants them.

Oh, sure, and we'd probably get more reflective numbers if we took first and second choice numbers into account. I figure it'd be safe to assume that all the NDP/Green votes that are wasted west of Ontario would go Liberal anyway, which probably helps them out too.

I don't think it's perfect, since it re-entrenches the two party system that we have with a nod and a wink to the idea of fairness, but since it's been over a decade, I'd probably take anything if it mean Conservative governments became a thing of the past.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I voted to make this party policy

Spoiler

and succeeded.

IRV keeps this, but ensures that every riding victory is done so with a majority (50%+) mandate.



They lost. So, no.

I'd be in favour of IRV. It satisfies my two major concerns about the electoral reforms discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[maharg]

Wait, is there a difference between how the Federal constitution is made up and how the Provinces decide to make electoral changes? Why did BC and Ontario waste money on referendums that were doomed to fail? Why not just unilaterally pass STV/MMP/whatever? We could have had electoral reform without going through the idiot public? That makes this all the more tragic.

No. All Canadian legislatures have the power to legislate their own election process. Alberta actually once had multimember ridings for Edmonton and Calgary, and while that was pre-Constitution Act 1982 by quite a bit, I don't think anything has actually changed constitutionally to prevent it since. The only thing it requires is that the seat count for each region be proportional to the population of the region before applying some funny math applied to smaller ones and Quebec to get the numbers we have.

Take a look through the Constitution Act. You'll find not a word on how elections are conducted. The act that decides it, federally, is the Canada Elections Act, which is not a part of constitutional law that requires an amendment process.

The reason to have a referendum is because such a huge change without some measure of popular support would be kind of indefensible. Somewhere in the Commonwealth I'm pretty sure there's a place that made the change in legislation and then held a referendum after the next election to decide whether to keep it (as part of the change), which is imo the right way to go assuming the parties that are in favour of it won a true mandate (50%+ of the popular vote). I don't recall at the moment which country that was, though.

I maintain, though, that any system that entrenches a two party system is de facto terrible. So I don't like single-member IRV at all unless it also comes with multimember ridings so minority voices are heard in the legislature. It would be far worse than what we have now and would probably mean *MORE* conservative governments in the future, not fewer.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I maintain, though, that any system that entrenches a two party system is de facto terrible. So I don't like single-member IRV at all unless it also comes with multimember ridings so minority voices are heard in the legislature. It would be far worse than what we have now and would probably mean *MORE* conservative governments in the future, not fewer.

It seems to me we just have a fundamental disagreement as to the purpose of elections. If you can't win a riding you don't deserve a seat in the legislature.

 

[maharg]

It seems to me we just have a fundamental disagreement as to the purpose of elections. If you can't win a riding you don't deserve a seat in the legislature.

Yes, you see elections as being some kind of silly game that you have to 'win'. I'm more interested in the government representing the will of its people, including being divided where the people are divided. This winner-take-all approach to elections leads to governments completely out of whack with the people they govern. Making it based on arbitrary geographic boundaries just makes it even worse.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Yes, you see elections as being some kind of silly game that you have to 'win'. I'm more interested in the government representing the will of its people, including being divided where the people are divided. This winner-take-all approach to elections leads to governments completely out of whack with the people they govern. Making it based on arbitrary geographic boundaries just makes it even worse.

Why not just let everyone win! You're not going to sell me on people who either failed to get enough votes in a riding or failed to be tested by a riding getting seats in government. You think it's so terrible that someone get a seat with 40% of the vote, but getting a seat with 25% is ok?

 

[firehawk12]

No. All Canadian legislatures have the power to legislate their own election process. Alberta actually once had multimember ridings for Edmonton and Calgary, and while that was pre-Constitution Act 1982 by quite a bit, I don't think anything has actually changed constitutionally to prevent it since. The only thing it requires is that the seat count for each region be proportional to the population of the region before applying some funny math applied to smaller ones and Quebec to get the numbers we have.

Take a look through the Constitution Act. You'll find not a word on how elections are conducted. The act that decides it, federally, is the Canada Elections Act, which is not a part of constitutional law that requires an amendment process.

The reason to have a referendum is because such a huge change without some measure of popular support would be kind of indefensible. Somewhere in the Commonwealth I'm pretty sure there's a place that made the change in legislation and then held a referendum after the next election to decide whether to keep it (as part of the change), which is imo the right way to go assuming the parties that are in favour of it won a true mandate (50%+ of the popular vote). I don't recall at the moment which country that was, though.

I maintain, though, that any system that entrenches a two party system is de facto terrible. So I don't like single-member IRV at all unless it also comes with multimember ridings so minority voices are heard in the legislature. It would be far worse than what we have now and would probably mean *MORE* conservative governments in the future, not fewer.

Oh, I think IRV is pretty much a sham in terms of actual representation. But at least it makes people feel good about voting, which is better than what we have now. If you are a Liberal in Alberta (or a Conservative in Toronto), there literally is no point in voting at the moment. I have to imagine it's part of why voter turnout is dwindling.
(That and not making it mandatory to vote and having election day be a Federal holiday, but let's not get crazy here).

I didn't really think to look up Election law though, I just took for granted that they needed referendums to make them binding. Given how equally important facets of our society are unilaterally decided upon by a governing party (killing the long form census because of the right-wing privacy nuts), I feel like it'd be fair if some government decided to do this on their own. If nothing else, a party willing to front any kind of electoral reform is essentially writing itself into obsolescence, so I would have to assume noble intent there at the very least.

 

[maharg]

Why not just let everyone win! You're not going to sell me on people who either failed to get enough votes in a riding or failed to be tested by a riding getting seats in government. You think it's so terrible that someone get a seat with 40% of the vote, but getting a seat with 25% is ok?

You realize that, if there are two parties running in a multi-member riding and one of those parties gets 25%, the other party gets *three times as many seats* as them, right? It's not as if they can suddenly run the country. But in our system as it stands, a party could actually win a *majority government* with 25% of the vote. All it would probably take is one more party taking more than 10% of the vote. Because that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Simon Belmont]

You realize that, if there are two parties running in a multi-member riding and one of those parties gets 25%, the other party gets *three times as many seats* as them, right? It's not as if they can suddenly run the country. But in our system as it stands, a party could actually win a *majority government* with 25% of the vote. All it would probably take is one more party taking more than 10% of the vote. Because that makes a lot of sense.

Now who's talking about fringe cases.

Also a future where we have to run everything past the Green party is straight up terrifying.

 

[maharg]

Now who's talking about fringe cases.

Also a future where we have to run everything past the Green party is straight up terrifying.

You miss the point. More voices in our system result in surer majorities representing fewer people. This is just fact, and plainly obvious if you do even a cursory survey of the last 50 years or so of elections.

I'm far more scared of a future (or, effectively, present) where 35% of the population holds absolute power than a future where 10% of the population occasionally get their way *when it's tolerable to the other 90%*. I can't even fathom finding the latter more terrifying than the former.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Now who's talking about fringe cases.

Also a future where we have to run everything past the Green party is straight up terrifying.

Lol BC Liberals say jump and the Greens say how high. "Running everything past Greens" isn't even a problem.

 

[Simon Belmont]

You miss the point. More voices in our system result in surer majorities representing fewer people. This is just fact, and plainly obvious if you do even a cursory survey of the last 50 years or so of elections.

I'm far more scared of a future (or, effectively, present) where 35% of the population holds absolute power than a future where 10% of the population occasionally get their way *when it's tolerable to the other 90%*. I can't even fathom finding the latter more terrifying than the former.

Again, we just see things differently. I don't see the majority of Canadians voting to the left, I see the majority voting down the centre of the political spectrum. The centre left and centre right parties trading off terms is an adequate expression of the will of the voters in my opinion.

If it's the will of the voters you're concerned about, you'd do well to remember this.

 

[Azih]

Again, we just see things differently. I don't see the majority of Canadians voting to the left, I see the majority voting down the centre of the political spectrum.

A majority of Canadian voters vote for Conservatives and the Libs. A majority of Canadian voters vote for Conservatives + NDP. A majority of voters vote for Liberals + NDP. No majority of Canadians vote for any one party since Brian Mulroney. You cannot downplay the significant and positive difference it would make to prevent any one party from getting full majority power without earning it (by getting 50% plus of the vote). Politicians, just like all other people, respond to incentives. The current system and IRV both give politicians no incentive to cooperate and compromise to govern, but instead scream at each other and act as partisan as possible in order to get enough of their base to come out to give them around 40% of the vote to get full unfettered power. As soon as a party gets close to that magic approx 40 % mark the voting system itself gives them a perverted incentive to shoot for (Get just a few percentage point more votes to get full majority power).

Proportional representation removes that incentive entirely. Since every party knows that they can't realistically get full majority power, they have to reconcile themselves to governing as a coalition until the next election. And you don't have the dumb situation in our system (and under IRV) where only swing ridings matter and every other riding can go hang.

And again, I just do not understand the idea that in a representative democracy, only 'winning' voters, get to have representation while everybody else can go eat a dick. The right of decision belongs to the majority, the right of representation belongs to all. And the current system and AV both completely fail at both points.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Now who's talking about fringe cases.

Well, Frank McKenna got 79% of the seats in '91 NB election with 47% of the vote (and 100% of the seats in the '87 NB election with 65% of the vote); Chretien got 60% of the seats in the 1993 election with 38% of the vote (including 101/103 seats in Ontario with 49% of the vote); Ralph Klein got several super-majorities. I'm not really sure how it'd be a fringe case to suggest, as maharg did, that in the current system a targeted 25% of the vote that was geographically concentrated in key ridings would be able to achieve a majority, and that's without taking into account abysmal turnout rates that further distort representativeness.

Perhaps the most instructive case of outsized representation from voting was the BQ in '93, not because of proportion of votes to seats, but more from simple intuition. Official opposition status. They only ran in one province. They got 72% of the seats in that province. They got less than 50% of the vote in that province.

Again, we just see things differently. I don't see the majority of Canadians voting to the left, I see the majority voting down the centre of the political spectrum. The centre left and centre right parties trading off terms is an adequate expression of the will of the voters in my opinion.

... you don't just get to redefine what representation means to mean "meh, I'm represented". You can quantify who is represented and who is not, and you can quantify ways to improve representation. It's also funny that you say "the majority" of Canadians are represented, when they plainly aren't; we have a majority government that was elected by a minority of voters.

If it's the will of the voters you're concerned about, you'd do well to remember this.

No one is arguing that electoral reforms should be imposed against the public's will, but I also get the sense that you've chosen the case because its outcome agrees with your argument rather than because you believe that the campaign was conducted fairly and charitably and the outcome reflects a real public debate on the issue.

 

[diaspora]

Well, Frank McKenna got 79% of the seats in '91 NB election with 47% of the vote (and 100% of the seats in the '87 NB election with 65% of the vote); Chretien got 60% of the seats in the 1993 election with 38% of the vote (including 101/103 seats in Ontario with 49% of the vote); Ralph Klein got several super-majorities. I'm not really sure how it'd be a fringe case to suggest, as maharg did, that in the current system a targeted 25% of the vote that was geographically concentrated in key ridings would be able to achieve a majority, and that's without taking into account abysmal turnout rates that further distort representativeness.

Perhaps the most instructive case of outsized representation from voting was the BQ in '93, not because of proportion of votes to seats, but more from simple intuition. Official opposition status. They only ran in one province. They got 72% of the seats in that province. They got less than 50% of the vote in that province.

All of those cases are perfectly fine, all of those seats were won, the total votes nationwide for any particular party is a worthless number.

 

[Azih]

Perhaps the most instructive case of outsized representation from voting was the BQ in '93, not because of proportion of votes to seats, but more from simple intuition. Official opposition status. They only ran in one province. They got 72% of the seats in that province. They got less than 50% of the vote in that province.

Yeah and in that election the BQ placed FOURTH in popular support. It was also the election where 2 million people voted for the PC party and won.... two seats. While the BQ got 75 based on 1.8 million votes. The center right party was decimated even though millions of canadians voted for it and the far right of the country became the standard bearer of the right wing. It was all bullshit of the highest order.

Really the incredible distorted view that FPTP and AV give us of each other is such an incredibly poisonous thing especially in the very large and fragmented federation that we live in. FPTP and AV both exaggerate regional parties to an insane extent and the parties that earn power can be far more divisive than the population is. It's just not healthy.

 

[diaspora]

Yeah and in that election the BQ placed FOURTH in popular support. It was also the election where 2 million people voted for the PC party and won.... two seats. While the BQ got 75 based on 1.8 million votes. The center right party was decimated even though millions of canadians voted for it and the far right of the country became the standard bearer of the right wing. It was all bullshit of the highest order.

Really the incredible distorted view that FPTP and AV give us of each other is such an incredibly poisonous thing especially in the very large and fragmented federation that we live in. FPTP and AV both exaggerate regional parties to an insane extent and the politicians that get elected are far more divisive than the population is. It's just not healthy.

Yeah, that's actually okay because the PCs failed to coalesce winning support in more than two communities. 2 million people diasporised across 308 ridings shouldn't be worth anything. A party that can't convince more that two communities in the country to choose their nominee as their representative has no business having more than two seats of representation.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I can appreciate the discussion on the matter, but you're not going to convince me that MMP or Multi-member ridings are a good idea. I've repeated expressed my main concerns which nobody has really addressed.

I'm a bow out here, you kids have fun.

 

[Azih]

Yeah, that's actually okay because the PCs failed to coalesce winning support in more than two communities. 2 million people diasporised across 308 ridings isn't worth anything.

That's a choice that FPTP and AV make. The majority of democracies in the world today take a look at that kind of bullshit and go "Nope, that's ridiculous", around 84 countries use PR. Really the funniest thing about all this is the impression in Canada that PR is some weird theoretical system and FPTP is the 'natural' way of doing things. FPTP is a primitive legacy system quite frankly.

Simon: Your concerns are theoretical gut feelings that don't really have much backing (and you used untrue exaggerations to make your point to boot, 70% being indirectly elected? A whole raft of cushy jobs? The only difference being a few fringe parties getting a few seats? None of these are true). I mean if you are happy with your truthy gut reactions than more power to you I suppose.

And you didn't respond to all of the ugly ugly ramifiactions of FPTP and AV systems that were raised here and we live with. You seem to be alright with politicians not accurately representing how people vote but instead being cartoon caricatures of their areas (Albertans are all conservatives for example, not true at all), politicians working in a system that encourages partisan rhetoric and lack of cooperation to get over the around 40% hump to earn full unfettered power (that corrupts) and voters in safe ridings being doomed to casting meaningless votes and not getting democratic representation in a representative democracy because they're 'losers' and can go jump in a lake as they don't deserve to be counted in the halls of power for some unexplainable reason.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Anyone else in Ontario getting a lot of unnecessary Government of Ontario ads recently? I got an ad for the non-existent Ontario Pension Plan, some Ministry of Transport ad, and some Metrolinx ads. All before an election, Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[maharg]

All of those cases are perfectly fine, all of those seats were won, the total votes nationwide for any particular party is a worthless number.

... Because... ?

 

[firehawk12]

Because FPTP benefits both Liberals and Conservatives, I assume. lol

I guess we should be glad that we don't have as insane gerrymandering like they do in the US. Otherwise, this would be so much worse.

 

[gutter_trash]

Well, Frank McKenna got 79% of the seats in '91 NB election with 47% of the vote (and 100% of the seats in the '87 NB election with 65% of the vote); Chretien got 60% of the seats in the 1993 election with 38% of the vote (including 101/103 seats in Ontario with 49% of the vote); Ralph Klein got several super-majorities. I'm not really sure how it'd be a fringe case to suggest, as maharg did, that in the current system a targeted 25% of the vote that was geographically concentrated in key ridings would be able to achieve a majority, and that's without taking into account abysmal turnout rates that further distort representativeness.

Perhaps the most instructive case of outsized representation from voting was the BQ in '93, not because of proportion of votes to seats, but more from simple intuition. Official opposition status. They only ran in one province. They got 72% of the seats in that province. They got less than 50% of the vote in that province.



... you don't just get to redefine what representation means to mean "meh, I'm represented". You can quantify who is represented and who is not, and you can quantify ways to improve representation. It's also funny that you say "the majority" of Canadians are represented, when they plainly aren't; we have a majority government that was elected by a minority of voters.



No one is arguing that electoral reforms should be imposed against the public's will, but I also get the sense that you've chosen the case because its outcome agrees with your argument rather than because you believe that the campaign was conducted fairly and charitably and the outcome reflects a real public debate on the issue.

Quebec 1998.
Lucien Bouchard's PQ lost the poular vote (42.87%) to Charest's PLQ (43.55%)

But Bouchard's PQ won a whopping majority of seats despite losing the popular vote. (76 seats for PQ vs 48 seats for PLQ.)

1998's Quebec Election proves that FPTP is a fucked up system that awarded a majority government to the party that came in 2nd in popular vote.

42.87% popular vote gives you 76 seats while 43.55% got the other guys 48 seats. eh
----------------

and older instance where FPTP is fucked was 1994's Quebec Election
Popular vote: PQ = 44.75% PLQ =44.40%
Seats: PQ: =77 PLQ = 47

In `94, the PQ edged the popular vote just by 1.35%, won a majority goverment AND THEN LAUNCHED A FUCKIN REFERENDUM THE NEXT YEAR!!!!

talk about BS political system garbage

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Corruption aloha!

Ontario Liberals use public money meant for administrative purposes to pay out party insiders

A Globe and Mail review has found a pattern of payments, about which little information is available, involving a tight circle of advisers that surrounded former premier Dalton McGuinty during his time in office. Among them were payments of more than $50,000 in the same year to two different companies in the name of the former premier’s campaign director; money repeatedly directed to a high-profile strategist through his then-wife’s business; and more than $300,000 paid to a former chief of staff shortly after he was pushed out of his job.

While there is no indication that any of the transactions were illegitimate, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine what services were provided at taxpayers’ expense.

The Globe review follows a criminal probe that helped bring to light the fact that nearly $160,000 in public funds were paid through a numbered company to Peter Faist, the boyfriend of a deputy chief of staff to Mr. McGuinty, for IT services that police believe led to the destruction of government records. (Mr. Faist was not the subject of the investigation, and police have not accused him of any wrongdoing.) Multiple sources told The Globe and Mail the contract was not an isolated incident.

More at the link

 

[firehawk12]

CTV did some polling. Only 23% even know about the Fair Elections Act and of the people who do know about it, most of them don't think it is unfair.

Also it looks like the Conservatives are picking up again - the Robocall thing has all but disappeared and CTV polling suggests that the Conservatives and Liberals are both tied at 33%.

Yay Canada.

 

[GSG Flash]

Supreme Court: Federal government can’t reform Senate on its own

OTTAWA — The federal government cannot, on its own, make major reforms to the Senate, or abolish it outright, Canada’s top court says.

In a landmark decision Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada handed the Conservative government a legal defeat, saying it needs the agreement of seven provinces with half the country’s population to set term limits on senators or allow for elections for Senate nominees.

Senate reform is about the only thing I agree with the Conservatives on. The idea of unelected for-life senators having as much power as they have really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Boogie]

CTV did some polling. Only 23% even know about the Fair Elections Act and of the people who do know about it, most of them don't think it is unfair.

Also it looks like the Conservatives are picking up again - the Robocall thing has all but disappeared and CTV polling suggests that the Conservatives and Liberals are both tied at 33%.

Yay Canada.

Hmm, and yet in the two pages before this post you were talking like the Conservatives' defeat in the next election had been carved in stone.

It's almost as if things can change when a country still has over a year until the next election....

 

[firehawk12]

Hmm, and yet in the two pages before this post you were talking like the Conservatives' defeat in the next election had been carved in stone.

It's almost as if things can change when a country still has over a year until the next election....

You must be thinking of someone else, because I think the Conservatives will win a minority at the very least. I'm the crazy person who has long advocated for an NDP-Liberal "unite the left" merger. lol

 

[Boogie]

You must be thinking of someone else, because I think the Conservatives will win a minority at the very least. I'm the crazy person who has long advocated for an NDP-Liberal "unite the left" merger. lol

Firehawk12 from 10 days ago:

Anyone taking the job now would be the Kim Campbell/Paul Martin of the new decade. If Harper set up a move last year, then maybe. But unless the new guy poops money and decides to both increase healthcare and cut taxes to 0%, then at best they're looking at a minority government.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The Conservatives won't make inroads into Quebec and will recede at least a little bit in Ontario, but the additional districts being added nation-wide favour the Conservatives. As a result, I feel they're well-poised to perform well even assuming a national popular vote swing against them.

To me, the Liberals chance at a challenge depends on the extent to which they perform in Quebec (either a revived Bloc or an NDP that takes say 30+ of the Quebec seats pose real electoral math problems for the Liberals), and how many marginal conservative seats they peel off in Ontario.

Campaigns do matter, and events do matter, but there's enough of a baseline spoken for that I think the realm of possibilities is a little narrower. Absent a catastrophic event occurring in the next year or so, there won't be a high degree of actual issue salience heading into the election so we're likely to see campaign running on the usual low-substance "Good economic stewardship" "Building the Canada of tomorrow" sort of stuff.

Harper isn't going to break 40; Trudeau isn't going to implode as badly as Ignatieff or Dion; Mulcair doesn't have the kind of public appeal that Layton enjoyed in his last few campaigns, but the NDP has done a good job of recentering the party around Quebec. Personally, at this juncture and subject to change I'd guess CPC Minority, Liberal Minority, CPC Majority, Liberal Majority in descending order of probability.

For me the biggest decision is, as someone who will be outside the country during the election, deciding where to establish my permanent residence within Canada for foreign voting purposes, given that I qualify in at least three ridings by Elections Canada rules.

Spoiler

that is if I'm not disenfranchised by electoral reform lol

 

[equippedwithtowel]

I think my lean towards a liberal minority is my completely unsubstantiated belief that the CPC has the kind of crew that will drag them seriously off track during a national campaign, especially if their attacks on Trudeau don't see good returns initially. Also I live in perpetual hope.

 

[bigmf]

I think my lean towards a liberal minority is my completely unsubstantiated belief that the CPC has the kind of crew that will drag them seriously off track during a national campaign, especially if their attacks on Trudeau don't see good returns initially. Also I live in perpetual hope.

That's really been the domain of the Liberal party and their incessant infighting since the early eighties. It started with (P.E.)Trudeau-Turner through Chretien-Martin through Ignatief-Rae with a little everyone hates Dion in the mix. It sounds like the rumblings are beginning again over the open nominations pledge and subsequent meddling from JT.

 

[gabbo]

That's really been the domain of the Liberal party and their incessant infighting since the early eighties. It started with (P.E.)Trudeau-Turner through Chretien-Martin through Ignatief-Rae with a little everyone hates Dion in the mix. It sounds like the rumblings are beginning again over the open nominations pledge and subsequent meddling from JT.

What's happening now is nowhere near the levels of those previous infights.

 

[gutter_trash]

The redraw of the ridings in the greater Montreal area shuts out the Bloc from ever coming back onto the Island and also puts Thomas Mulcair in danger in Outremont because the redraw cuts-out the Hipsters in the Mile-End out of the Outremont riding and pits them into the changed riding of Plateau-Mile-End (formerly Laurier-Ste-Marie)

Laurier-Ste-Marie (Plateau) will be redrawn and renamed. It will be geographicly representive of the bourough of the Plateau which includes the Mile-End. It will be called: Plateau-Mile-End. NDP'S Helene Laverdiere ousted Gilles Duceppe there in 2011.

Outremount the riding will now be more geographically representative of the borough of Outremont itself.

Hipsters in Mile-End won't be able to vote for Tom Mulcair himself and will have to vote Helene Laverdiere instead in the Plateau

Tom Mulcair may lose his seat to a Liberal

look closely between Parc Avenenue and St-Laurent blvd. Hipsters in the Mile-End are out of Outremont.
-----------

as for Senate Reform, it won't happen. QC+NS+NB+PEI+NL = 5 Provinces.
You need 7 province and 50% of the population the make the change.
All the provicnes East of Ontario want to keep their Senators

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ast-food-sector-suspended-by-ottawa-1.2621385

Good to hear. If the allegations are true the program, at least as far as fast food workers, amounted to little more than a sort of indentured servitude that I found very reminiscent to the way we were taught the Chinese workers on the rail road were treated.

Even if not, then I'm sure there are plenty of kids who would like to have these jobs. If a business really can't operate profitably while paying it's employees minimum wage, then maybe it's time to admit that the invisible hand of the market has decided against that business. Somehow I doubt that's the case in the vast majority of instances anyway.

 

[firehawk12]

Firehawk12 from 10 days ago:

I don't know how my comment, which is about a Conservative taking over after Harper retires assuming he "pulls a Mulroney", is indicative I think they will lose.

Paul Martin managed to win a minority after he got handled a bag full of shit when Chretien left. Chances are a new Conservative leader will probably have the same thing to deal with.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...tawa-1.2621385

Good to hear. If the allegations are true the program, at least as far as fast food workers, amounted to little more than a sort of indentured servitude that I found very reminiscent to the way we were taught the Chinese workers on the rail road were treated.

Even if not, then I'm sure there are plenty of kids who would like to have these jobs. If a business really can't operate profitably while paying it's employees minimum wage, then maybe it's time to admit that the invisible hand of the market has decided against that business. Somehow I doubt that's the case in the vast majority of instances anyway.

It's the promise of citizenship that presumably serves as a better motivator. Also, these employees are automatically more loyal than a high school kid who will quit the moment they find something better, since their promise of citizenship depends entirely on keeping the boss happy.

Harper isn't going to break 40; Trudeau isn't going to implode as badly as Ignatieff or Dion; Mulcair doesn't have the kind of public appeal that Layton enjoyed in his last few campaigns, but the NDP has done a good job of recentering the party around Quebec. Personally, at this juncture and subject to change I'd guess CPC Minority, Liberal Minority, CPC Majority, Liberal Majority in descending order of probability.

That's basically how I see it as well. Well, I would go one step further into science fiction and say a Liberal-NDP coalition government could be a possibility too.

The NDP and Liberals are going to nuke each other in Quebec, which means the Liberals have to take Conservative seats in Ontario (and probably take back any NDP gains in the GTA) and hope for the best. Without the "star power" of Layton/Chow, I don't know if those two ridings are an automatic lock for the NDP anymore.

as for Senate Reform, it won't happen. QC+NS+NB+PEI+NL = 5 Provinces.
You need 7 province and 50% of the population the make the change.
All the provicnes East of Ontario want to keep their Senators

You could probably reach a compromise on term limits. It's really a mess anyway, and people are afraid of... well, pulling another Mulroney. lol

Also, Pierre Poilievre continues to be the biggest ass in the country. I don't get how he still has a job when Harper has fired like half his staff and MPs for doing relatively less damage.