Support NeoGAF

[mdubs]

I have to admit general ignorance on this, but if Harper couldn't run in the next election for some reason, who's the front-runner to be his successor within the party? Is this something we know?

I agree with BigJonsson, almost certainly Jason Kenney. Flaherty and Baird would have been strong contenders but Kenney has seems to have strong party support and has been a Harper favourite since they've come into power and especially since his stint as Minister of Immigration.

I wonder how long Harper plans to stay on for since next year will be 10 years for him (assuming he wins the election). He should write a book on Machiavelli and the Harper years if he decides to retire. I'd read it, the inner working of this government are extremely fascinating considering how much maneuvering there is and how closed off it is

 

[Boogie]

This is strange, but I'm now mildly worried that I've ended up on some CSIS list because I asked that question. C-51 sucks.

I'm opening a file on you as we speak.

 

[diaspora]

My favourite thing about C-51 is how both Trudeau's and Mulcair's plan for for the bill if in power are identical, neither would scrap it but both would fix the lack of oversight. Seeing people flip their shit about Trudeau's/Mulcair's position on the bill now when it's going to pass anyway is just...

 

[Zombie James]

Well, looks like Liberal majorities in Ontario aren't going to end anytime soon. Sad to see the PC's double-down on crazy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-wins-ontario-pc-leadership-race-1.3066811

 

[maharg]

My favourite thing about C-51 is how both Trudeau's and Mulcair's plan for for the bill if in power are identical, neither would scrap it but both would fix the lack of oversight. Seeing people flip their shit about Trudeau's/Mulcair's position on the bill now when it's going to pass anyway is just...

Er. There's a pretty substantial difference between "Pass a sweeping police powers bill and fix it later" and "don't pass it until it's fixed". For one thing, the "fix it later" plan requires that you actually take office to fix it.

And you seem to be suggesting that the opposition shouldn't oppose anything that will pass anyways which... uh... would mean in a majority government they'd always vote with the government.

 

[diaspora]

Er. There's a pretty substantial difference between "Pass a sweeping police powers bill and fix it later" and "don't pass it until it's fixed". For one thing, the "fix it later" plan requires that you actually take office to fix it.

And you seem to be suggesting that the opposition shouldn't oppose anything that will pass anyways which... uh... would mean in a majority government they'd always vote with the government.

There's no difference between "We'll fix it in power" and "we'll fix it in power". This bill passes without their support either way, if a party votes against it they need to commit to killing it when in power otherwise they're no different than the party that has the same plans for the bill in power.

Voting against a majority gov bill and following up with a refusal to scrap it is fucking pointless. So my point is, if you vote to stop a bill, you should commit to killing it when you have the power to otherwise you're a disingenuous bullshitter.


Edit: My own position on the bill is that it shouldn't exist full-stop and should be killed at first opportunity. This is a position unfortunately not shared by any party.

 

[maharg]

There's no difference between "We'll fix it in power" and "we'll fix it in power". This bill passes without their support either way, if a party votes against it they need to commit to killing it when in power otherwise they're no different than the party that has the same plans for the bill in power.

Voting against a majority gov bill and following up with a refusal to scrap it is fucking pointless. So my point is, if you vote to stop a bill, you should commit to killing it when you have the power to otherwise you're a disingenuous bullshitter.

This is ridiculous. What's disingenuous is voting for a bill you claim not to support as-is on final reading. On early readings when it goes to committees that can change it? Sure. But if you vote for a law to actually pass, you are supporting that law.

Then crying "wah, we didn't really agree with all of it, we were hoping you'd vote us in so we could fix it" is bullshit. All anyone can or should take from the liberals voting for it is that they're fine with the law and are trying to have their cake and eat it too by opposing without actual opposition.

 

[diaspora]

This is ridiculous. What's disingenuous is voting for a bill you claim not to support as-is on final reading. On early readings when it goes to committees that can change it? Sure. But if you vote for a law to actually pass, you are supporting that law.

Then crying "wah, we didn't really agree with all of it, we were hoping you'd vote us in so we could fix it" is bullshit. All anyone can or should take from the liberals voting for it is that they're fine with the law and are trying to have their cake and eat it too by opposing without actual opposition.

Voting against a law you have no intention of actually removing is absolutely bullshit. The LPC is useless for supporting something that is ultimately the antithesis of the party philosophy and the NDP can suck my dick for voting against something they're not against.

 

[mdubs]

I don't really understand either what the NDP or the Liberals are doing, they should be committing to scrapping it or at least overhauling if they are going to oppose it now. It really sends a message of just shrugging and saying "oh well" rather than committing to it. I wonder if they are worried about the public backlash to committing to scapping it. It really feels like C-51 is just painting to Liberals and NDP into a corner, partially of their own doing.

Well, looks like Liberal majorities in Ontario aren't going to end anytime soon. Sad to see the PC's double-down on crazy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-wins-ontario-pc-leadership-race-1.3066811

What's the consensus on Brown? (not what you personally feel about his politics, but how well do they fit the PC platform and their chances of getting elected by voters)

 

[Mr.Mike]

What's the consensus on Brown? (not what you personally feel about his politics, but how well do they fit the PC platform and their chances of getting elected by voters)

This debate might be of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C0SKqNdSKM (Note that I haven't finished listening).

Apparently he says in there that the conservatives can't win the election by being liberal lite, which is frankly exactly what the conservatives need to be to win. Patrick Brown is very much a social conservative and that's not at all what I'd imagine most of the "center" in Ontario wants. Of course he'll probably be very successful with immigrant voters, which is apparently where he was able to get the support to win the PC leadership. And apparently his "ground game" is really good too.

By my estimation the PC's chances aren't great, and ultimately his far too right ideology will stop him from getting enough support to win.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

What's the consensus on Brown? (not what you personally feel about his politics, but how well do they fit the PC platform and their chances of getting elected by voters)

He's good at selling memberships and campaigning, especially among ethnic and religious communities.

He's a social conservative, anti-abortion and homophobic. Career politician if there ever was one. His appeal to non-social conservatives seems limited. He's been extremely light/non-existent on policy, except he attacked Christine Elliot's "pink" economic policies, so we know at least that he isn't a Red Tory on the economy. Not sure if he's libertarian or Hudak-level crazy though.

The funny thing is he doesn't even have a seat, and his federal riding of Barrie belongs to a Liberal at the provincial level. I wonder what riding will have the "honour" of seating him (he hasn't resigned as Barrie MP yet, he collected $100k while campaigning for provincial Tories and not going to work...)

 

[diaspora]

I don't really understand either what the NDP or the Liberals are doing, they should be committing to scrapping it or at least overhauling if they are going to oppose it now. It really sends a message of just shrugging and saying "oh well" rather than committing to it. I wonder if they are worried about the public backlash to committing to scapping it. It really feels like C-51 is just painting to Liberals and NDP into a corner, partially of their own doing.

I think you're on point with this. I think the NDP and LPC both support the same theoretical C-51, but their votes are geared towards creating a certain public image for themselves irrespective of what they plan to do in government.

What's the consensus on Brown? (not what you personally feel about his politics, but how well do they fit the PC platform and their chances of getting elected by voters)

Further to the right of Davis and even Hudak. OLP need to watch out for Brown hammering them on power prices even if he won't have a viable plan himself.

 

[maharg]

Leaving aside the fact that believing a legislation should not pass as is, but could be acceptable to pass in some other form is not the same as intending to pass similar legislation themselves if they had the power (which I think is the case for the NDP), I'm deeply confused as to what you think the right thing to do if a party believes a legislation to be just flawed.

Because apparently, voting for it is unacceptable because reasons. And voting against it is unacceptable for reasons. Should they abstain? What?

As far as I'm concerned (and I feel like this is incredibly uncontroversial, hence my bafflement at what you're saying), the only time a party should vote in third reading for a bill they don't like is if it's a confidence motion in a minority government and they're unwilling to undertake the cost of an election over their principles. Any other time they would not have passed *that exact bill* they should vote against it, because that is literally their job.

 

[diaspora]

Voting against a bill a party is in fact okay with is disingenuous nonsense. In a majority setting their feelings on a bill isn't reflected in how they vote on it, but are instead on what they plan on doing with it in power, in this they're liberal clones.

 

[mdubs]

This debate might be of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C0SKqNdSKM (Note that I haven't finished listening).

Apparently he says in there that the conservatives can't win the election by being liberal lite, which is frankly exactly what the conservatives need to be to win. Patrick Brown is very much a social conservative and that's not at all what I'd imagine most of the "center" in Ontario wants. Of course he'll probably be very successful with immigrant voters, which is apparently where he was able to get the support to win the PC leadership. And apparently his "ground game" is really good too.

By my estimation the PC's chances aren't great, and ultimately his far too right ideology will stop him from getting enough support to win.

That is interesting stuff. Although, I'd argue that he's not exactly wrong when it comes to the PC having to differentiate from the OLP who are already further left than their federal counterpart. I wouldn't say the being too right leaning lost the PC the last election, they were up in the polls for a significant portion and there was a lot of clear sympathy for their message of debt reduction. The issue was their messaging was terrible, with their rhetoric and the 1 million job cuts promise really galvanizing people against them. I think there is a significant number of voters might be persuaded to vote PC if they get the messaging right this time and if he proves to be a backable leader.

Plus Tim Hudak was utterly uncharismatic as a leader, and this definitely lost them some otherwise Conservative votes (I remember voting Liberal in 2011 because of his lack of appeal compared to Dalton, funny that Dalton of all people benefited from that)

 

[GSG Flash]

Voting against a bill a party is in fact okay with is disingenuous nonsense. In a majority setting their feelings on a bill isn't reflected in how they vote on it, but are instead on what they plan on doing with it in power, in this they're liberal clones.

Voting for the bill or not voting for the bill is symbolic either way. It doesn't matter if both parties want the bill or not, the Liberals, by voting for the bill, have essentially told voters that "the bill in its current form is acceptable but..." whereas the NDP have essentially said "the bill is not acceptable in its current form". Considering the only choice we, as voters, have is to vote for a party that supports the bill in some form or not vote at all, I'd rather vote for the party with the latter viewpoint.

I fully agree with what Maharg is saying here. There is a symbolic difference between the parties voting for the bill.

 

[diaspora]

"the bill is not acceptable in its current form... But".

Ftfy. The bill both parties want are the same. To say "not acceptable" is a lie if they're willing to keep the bill.

 

[GSG Flash]

Ftfy. The bill both parties want are the same. To say "not acceptable" is a lie if they're willing to keep the bill.

I disagree.

If the Liberals felt that the bill was unacceptable, then they wouldn't have voted for it.

If they still vote for it despite thinking that it's unacceptable, like you said, then I don't understand how you can back a party that is spineless enough to do that.

 

[mdubs]

I disagree.

If the Liberals felt that the bill was unacceptable, then they wouldn't have voted for it.

If they still vote for it despite thinking that it's unacceptable, like you said, then I don't understand how you can back a party that is spineless enough to do that.

I think the tactical considerations from the LIB standpoint are so odd in this scenario. They don't gain anything by backing it, and they look weak by failing to get any changes made like they said they would while bleeding votes to the NDP since they are opposing.

I guess on the flip side, if they oppose they get hammered by CPC attack ads for being soft on terror and are backed into a rhetorical corner. Tough situation, but I feel that the second option might have been more successful for them at least in maintaining the impression that they aren't rolling over, plus they aren't caught in the awkward situation of having to explain why they back the bill but don't agree with the CPC position.

 

[maharg]

Voting against a bill a party is in fact okay with is disingenuous nonsense.

I agree. So if a party is not okay with the bill, they should vote against it. Which is what the NDP did. Whether they would have voted for a different bill with similar aims is irrelevant. The only time you vote for a bill like that is if you intend to suggest changes in committee. That time is past.

If a party doesn't like a bill as it is brought to third reading, they should vote against it. Period. It doesn't matter if they want to change one word or scrap the whole thing, the right thing to do is to declare their lack of confidence in the bill and not vote to pass it.

In a majority setting their feelings on a bill isn't reflected in how they vote on it

What. This is complete nonsense. In a majority setting, how they feel about the bill is in fact the ONLY thing being reflected in their vote. Only in a minority situation does an opposition party's calculus get any more meaningfully complicated than that. When the election happens this fall, the Liberals will have voted for C-51 and the NDP against. That is a material policy and platform difference. It can be made more nuanced from there in terms of what legislation they would introduce themselves given the chance, if any at all, but that is always going to be the starting point.

 

[diaspora]

I disagree.

If the Liberals felt that the bill was unacceptable, then they wouldn't have voted for it.

If they still vote for it despite thinking that it's unacceptable, like you said, then I don't understand how you can back a party that is spineless enough to do that.

Neither feel the bill is unacceptable. They're voting on how they want to look but both parties have made it clear they're OK with C-51 irrespective of how they're voting for it. This is why they're votes on this bill are irrelevant. The NDP and LPC both support C-51, the NDP is the one voting against a bill they'd want to keep.

 

[GSG Flash]

Neither feel the bill is unacceptable. They're voting on how they want to look.

Ok so if neither feel the bill is unacceptable, would you not rather back the party that voted against it? Atleast they democratically demonstrated their disdain for the bill in its current form.

 

[diaspora]

Ok so if neither feel the bill is unacceptable, would you not rather back the party that voted against it? Atleast they democratically demonstrated their disdain for the bill in its current form.

What the fuck, no of course not? Why would I support a party talking out of both sides of their mouth, spoiling a ballot would be more appropriate. Mulcair already does this with French and Anglo Canada.

 

[GSG Flash]

What the fuck, no of course not? Why would I support a party talking out of both sides of their mouth, spoiling a ballot would be more appropriate. Mulcair already does this with French and Anglo Canada.

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the Liberals here or the NDP? Was it not the Liberals telling us how shitty this bill in its current form is and then they go ahead and vote for it? If that's not a textbook example of talking out of both sides of their mouth, I don't know what is.

 

[diaspora]

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the Liberals here or the NDP? Was it not the Liberals telling us how shitty this bill in its current form is and then they go ahead and vote for it? If that's not a textbook example of talking out of both sides of their mouth, I don't know what is.

Who said they weren't? You saw me posting about spoiling my ballot right? The NDP are just more consistently scummy with this.

LOL @ democratic duty though. Yeah, using their democratic duty to appear to have a different position than their actual feelings. No wonder the socialist wing if the NDP are frustrated, the party has become no better than the blues or reds.

 

[maharg]

I just.. don't see where you think the NDP are being deceptive here. They made their amendments (which are afaik pretty substantial), those amendments lost, and now they've voted against it. What exactly are they lying about here?

 

[diaspora]

I just.. don't see where you think the NDP are being deceptive here. They made their amendments (which are afaik pretty substantial), those amendments lost, and now they've voted against it. What exactly are they lying about here?

They're voting against a bill they support enough to keep? The Liberals want the same amendments and ultimately the same bill. I want the next party in charge to kill this outright and nobody wants to. Consequently, nobody gets my vote.

Edit: the assumption that the NDP has some fictional moral high ground is the worst.

 

[maharg]

They're voting against a bill they support enough to keep? The Liberals want the same amendments and ultimately the same bill. I want the next party in charge to kill this outright and nobody wants to. Consequently, nobody gets my vote.

Edit: the assumption that the NDP has some fictional moral high ground is the worst.

I'm once again going to leave aside that proposing amendments to a bill does not mean you would introduce even that amended bill yourself, or that you wouldn't substantially alter the bill even more if you took office.

So, being agreeable to your premise: that the NDP and the Liberals are both hunkydory with C-51 in substance if not in fact, again: where is the deception in the NDP's actions? I just went and combed through some articles with quotes on it, and I don't see them saying anything contradictory with their actions in the house.

I'm not making any arguments about 'high grounds' or anything here, I'm really baffled by the catch-22 stance you've taken on this and would very much like to understand.

 

[diaspora]

I'm once again going to leave aside that proposing amendments to a bill does not mean you would introduce even that amended bill yourself, or that you wouldn't substantially alter the bill even more if you took office.

So, being agreeable to your premise: that the NDP and the Liberals are both hunkydory with C-51 in substance if not in fact, again: where is the deception in the NDP's actions? I just went and combed through some articles with quotes on it, and I don't see them saying anything contradictory with their actions in the house.

I'm not making any arguments about 'high grounds' or anything here, I'm really baffled by the catch-22 stance you've taken on this and would very much like to understand.

Voting against a bill he openly finds agreeable? Whether or not the amendments pass or fail now doesn't matter.

In not entirely clear why you're not getting the contradictory nature of the NDP's position.


Edit: rather than reiterate, I'll just quote myself.

 

[lacinius]

I'm sorry, but are we talking about the Liberals here or the NDP? Was it not the Liberals telling us how shitty this bill in its current form is and then they go ahead and vote for it? If that's not a textbook example of talking out of both sides of their mouth, I don't know what is.

No the Liberals have never said the bill is a big steaming turd, and they do support portions of the bill, but have committed to making changes if they form the next government.

By voting for the bill they are trying to avoid this:

“But we know that, tactically, this government would be perfectly happy if the opposition completely voted against this bill because it fits into their fear narrative and [their desire to] … bash people on security.”

“I do not want this government making political hay out of an issue … or trying to, out of an issue as important as security for Canadians,” Trudeau said.

“This conversation might be different if we weren’t months from an election campaign, but we are,” he added.

The Liberal amendments can be found here and will be part of the Liberal platform for the upcoming election.

 

[maharg]

Voting against a bill he openly finds agreeable? Whether or not the amendments pass or fail now doesn't matter.

In not entirely clear why you're not getting the contradictory nature of the NDP's position.


Edit: rather than reiterate, I'll just quote myself.

I would not characterize "I would massively change this bill" as "finding it agreeable". There's no double-talk in just voting against a bill you wouldn't pass yourselves. So I feel like there has to be more to this than you're describing that makes you feel like it's doublespeak. Everything they've done fits exactly with what they've said. Unlike the liberals, who voted for a bill in no danger of not passing that they literally would not pass themselves and intend to campaign against in the next election. That's bizarre to me.

And *everything* the opposition does in a majority government doesn't matter. So the only reason to vote *for* a bill you wouldn't pass yourself (again, an amended bill is not the same bill) is to avoid the bullshit tactical trap described in the post above mine.

Which is something that I, personally, find pretty gross.

If all you were saying was that you don't like that both would vote for the bill with amendments, that's fine. That's a perfectly rational and reasonable stance to take. But characterizing them as identical ways of voicing disagreement, and characterizing both as dishonest, I don't get.

 

[GSG Flash]

No the Liberals have never said the bill is a big steaming turd, and they do support portions of the bill, but have committed to making changes if they form the next government.

By voting for the bill they are trying to avoid this:



The Liberal amendments can be found here and will be part of the Liberal platform for the upcoming election.

You're right, they didn't shit on the bill and have largely been supportive of it, which, in my opinion, makes them no better than the Tories. But, at the same time, they were taking shots at the Tories on some of the content of the bill to gain political points from the left.

To vote for the bill just so that you don't get picked on by the mean Conservatives during the election campaign is extremely spineless to me.

When I vote for a party, I want them to actually stand by their words, if the Liberals did not feel that the bill in its current from was acceptable, they should have voted against it.

 

[mdubs]

The Liberal amendments can be found here and will be part of the Liberal platform for the upcoming election.

I'll be interested to see if they are able to accomplish making this a key issue in the election. They'll be fighting an uphill battle against the CPC rhetoric, so I'm not sure that they'll push it as much as they say they will, especially in a few months when the public has forgotten about C-51. The key issue in the election will likely be the economy anyways, so Harper will trot out the usual "in these uncertain economic times, we can't be risking our security" and people will buy it up as usual.

 

[lacinius]

You're right, they didn't shit on the bill and have largely been supportive of it, which, in my opinion, makes them no better than the Tories. But, at the same time, they were taking shots at the Tories on some of the content of the bill to gain political points from the left.

To vote for the bill just so that you don't get picked on by the mean Conservatives during the election campaign is extremely spineless to me.

When I vote for a party, I want them to actually stand by their words, if the Liberals did not feel that the bill in its current from was acceptable, they should have voted against it.

Yup, it's all politics... for this bill C-51 they will amend, and for bill C-23 Fair Elections Act the Liberals have committed to outright repealing it.

**edit to add... I would say it is the Conservatives that are spineless for making full use of their around the clock Republican style attack ads, which to me says they have nothing of value to contribute. But lie, cheat and steal is the proven path to victory for them, so have at it.

 

[CygnusXS]

There's so many Harper bills I want to see repealed. After C-51, the Respect for Communities Act (C-2) would be next on my list (assuming it's law by the election). And definitely the Balanced Refugee Reform Act of 2010 and the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.

Think I'm living in a pipe dream though.

 

[mdubs]

**edit to add... I would say it is the Conservatives that are spineless for making full use of their around the clock Republican style attack ads, which to me says they have nothing of value to contribute. But lie, cheat and steal is the proven path to victory for them, so have at it.

I think the attack ads are quite fascinating, because compared to the ones seen in the US they are really very tame, but still effective as we all saw when they managed to damage Dion and Ignatieff very badly. The tolerance level among Canadians for those type of attack ads is obviously a lot smaller, so I have to give the CPC credit for working with what they had and really being effective with it. I really admire the Dion and Ignatieff ads (as an observer of the political game) for the way they managed to avoid mudslinging while really effectively ingraining in the broad public mind (many people still remember these ads!) that Stephane Dion was not a leader and that Ignatieff was "just visiting". Very crafty and evil. If the Liberal ad machine could get going with something similar that would put a slogan in the public's mind to associate with Harper it would get very interesting.

 

[firehawk12]

If after a decade of bullshit the Liberals/NDP can't come up with something that sticks to Harper, then they really deserve to lose.

The Conservatives: Stuffing it up with the Duff.

 

[matthewwhatever]

That sounds awesome. Did you get to talk to people?

Yep. I raised just enough money to have lawn signs printed, and I got to take part in a few debates against a cabinet minister. It was over a decade ago now, but I have to say: if you have any interest in politics at all and you get a chance to run for office, take it.

What's the consensus on Brown? (not what you personally feel about his politics, but how well do they fit the PC platform and their chances of getting elected by voters)

Best description I've read of Brown so far: he was a Conservative MP since 2006, and he was never even made Parliamentary Secretary. Meanwhile, someone like Pierre Poilievre made to to PS, then cabinet minister. If you're not more qualified than Pierre Poilievre, that says a lot about how terrible an MP you are (and how terrible a Conservative you are, that you're not even trusted to stand up and deliver anti-Liberal/NDP talking points during Question Period).

 

[maharg]

So, I think it's interesting to note -- and consider as a preview of our own future under FPTP -- that in the UK election the Conservatives won a bare majority with only 36.9% of the popular vote (though in 2005 it was even worse, with just over 35% voting for Labour). Creeping ever downward to only 1/3 of electors deciding who holds complete and unmitigated power.

 

[mdubs]

If after a decade of bullshit the Liberals/NDP can't come up with something that sticks to Harper, then they really deserve to lose.

The Conservatives: Stuffing it up with the Duff.

I agree, and it's not like they haven't had plenty of chances to capitalize on.

They should have thrown up something easy to remember like "Stephen Harper: No respect for democracy, no respect for Canadians" with some random soundbyte. (Don't steal my ideas Trudeau if you browse GAF!)

So, I think it's interesting to note -- and consider as a preview of our own future under FPTP -- that in the UK election the Conservatives won a bare majority with only 36.9% of the popular vote (though in 2005 it was even worse, with just over 35% voting for Labour). Creeping ever downward to only 1/3 of electors deciding who holds complete and unmitigated power.

Yup, this is why people need to get out and vote. I see plenty of fuss about the things this government does on social media but young people don't even bother to get out to vote! It's really a shame because it just creates an endless cycle (although probably a good thing for my individual political views )

 

[maharg]

Yup, this is why people need to get out and vote. I see plenty of fuss about the things this government does on social media but young people don't even bother to get out to vote! It's really a shame because it just creates an endless cycle (although probably a good thing for my individual political views )

I'm not talking about turnout. I'm talking about FPTP. When I talk about electors, I'm talking about people who actually did vote. 36.9% of people who voted decided the UK election, and that's ridiculous whether turnout was 50% or 100%.

 

[mdubs]

I'm not talking about turnout. I'm talking about FPTP. When I talk about electors, I'm talking about people who actually did vote. 36.9% of people who voted decided the UK election, and that's ridiculous whether turnout was 50% or 100%.

Sure, but it could go either way, there isn't anything stopping other parties from taking advantage of it in the same way just as we saw in Alberta. While the NDP got 40.6% of the popular vote compared to 36.9%, that's still below 50% or a majority of the people voting for the party which gets power. The system is fair in that way, perhaps not good for democracy, but it is fair.

 

[DopeyFish]

Sure, but it could go either way, there isn't anything stopping other parties from taking advantage of it in the same way just as we saw in Alberta. While the NDP got 40.6% of the popular vote compared to 36.9%, that's still below 50% or a majority of the people voting for the party which gets power. The system is fair in that way, perhaps not good for democracy, but it is fair.

Yes, it's totally fair that the conservatives have won more elections in the last 10 years than the amount of times canadians voted conservative in the last 85 years

Totally fair.

Not.

Canada should be on a 3-2-1 system. Everyone gets 6 votes. 3 for first choice, 2 for 2nd choice, 1 for third choice.

 

[maharg]

Sure, but it could go either way, there isn't anything stopping other parties from taking advantage of it in the same way just as we saw in Alberta. While the NDP got 40.6% of the popular vote compared to 36.9%, that's still below 50% or a majority of the people voting for the party which gets power. The system is fair in that way, perhaps not good for democracy, but it is fair.

It's wrong when it's the conservatives and it's wrong when it's the ndp and it's wrong when it's the liberals. It's also wrong when it's the UK Conservatives, Labour, or (someday maybe) LibDem.

The wrong thing is that this *can* be taken advantage of. Not who's taking advantage of it right this minute. And no, it is not fair in any useful sense of the word. "The people in power have an equal opportunity to screw over the people" is not "fair".

 

[Azih]

How is a system that rewards geographic concentration of support rather than amount of support fair in a democracy.

 

[mdubs]

Yes, it's totally fair that the conservatives have won more elections in the last 10 years than the amount of times canadians voted conservative in the last 85 years

Totally fair.

Not.

Canada should be on a 3-2-1 system. Everyone gets 6 votes. 3 for first choice, 2 for 2nd choice, 1 for third choice.

Again, the fact that the Conservatives have benefited from this system federally has no bearing on whether you think this system is fair or not, otherwise you are just letting your biases decide what you think of a system. It's also important to point out that it's not like FPTP just arrived in the last few elections, so to characterize it as a system that unfairly benefits one party is silly when it also aided the Liberal majority in 1997 because of the vote splitting on the right between Reform and the PC.

Either you think it is fair for everyone or fair for no one. If you don't like the system on the whole, as maharg is saying, that's fine but you're just saying "I don't like this system because the party I don't like has been winning recently".

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Anyone see some of the polls coming out today? They're making heads turn.

EKOS preliminary

Insights West polling 800 people (BC only) from May 7 - 9 (the days after C51 passed)

And unrelated, but I think it has much to do with federal happenings as provincial: the Ontario NDP at 36%, Progressive Conservatives at 33%, and Ontario Liberals at 24% at the provincial level.

We need another federal pollster to confirm. The Liberals have made a huge mistake if these numbers hold true.

 

[maharg]

The Liberals have made a huge mistake if these numbers hold true.

No, you see the Liberals forcing some voters to the NDP can *only* help the CPC. There's no way the NDP could take advantage of the situation and swing things farther than either the Liberals or the CPC intend. That's unpossible!

 

[Mr.Mike]

ronpaulhappening.gif

I'd always thought that we'd see the NDP support go up when we got to the actual campaign and people decided they liked Mulcair the best. But now the NDP are in first place anyway!

Is there a projected seat breakdown anywhere? I'm curious as to how "efficient" the NDP vote might be.

 

[mdubs]

ronpaulhappening.gif

I'd always thought that we'd see the NDP support go up when we got to the actual campaign and people decided they liked Mulcair the best. But now the NDP are in first place anyway!

Is there a projected seat breakdown anywhere? I'm curious as to how "efficient" the NDP vote might be.

We should probably wait for the threehundredeight aggregate before drawing conclusions from this. They'll also have the projected seat breakdown.