Support NeoGAF

[You Are Viewtiful]

Nah, we need a system like the Australian Senate. IRV has the same problems that the current system does as in most cases the two systems elect the same people.

Didn't they have some crazy parties get in the Australian Senate like the Sports Party and the Sex Party lol. I like Germany's system most, or the system that was about to be implemented in Ontario (similar to New Zealand and Germany) until the Libs deliberately sabotaged it.

 

[Azih]

Yeah I like the German system the best too, but seriously IRV/AV or whatever you call it is a total fakeout of a 'reform'. Nothing will change and it'd poison the well for any other actual reform since you know you've already 'reformed' the system and it didn't work.

I mean anybody who wins with more than 50 or close to 50 percent of the vote in FPTP would get elected under AV/IRV as well for certain and the probability is high that even people who win with less under FPTP would have enough '2nd choice votes' to win with AV as well. So what's the reform exactly? Take a look at how many Greens get elected to the Austrailian Senate (which has PR) as opposed to how many elected to the House of Representatives which uses AV/IRV. AV/IRV is just as much of a shitshow as FPTP.

 

[killer rin]

Yeah I like the German system the best too, but seriously IRV/AV or whatever you call it is a total fakeout of a 'reform'. Nothing will change and it'd poison the well for any other actual reform since you know you've already 'reformed' the system and it didn't work.

I mean anybody who wins with more than 50 or close to 50 percent of the vote in FPTP would get elected under AV/IRV as well for certain and the probability is high that even people who win with less under FPTP would have enough '2nd choice votes' to win with AV as well. So what's the reform exactly? Take a look at how many Greens get elected to the Austrailian Senate (which has PR) as opposed to how many elected to the House of Representatives which uses AV/IRV. AV/IRV is just as much of a shitshow as FPTP.

Last election the Conservatives managed to win a Majority with only a small percentage of the overall votes (37% if I'm not mistaken). That is what it would change. While the conservatives might have still won, they wouldn't have gotten a majority and given free reign to make the wide sweeping changes they are trying to make. It would also help dismantle the popular past-time of strategic voting where people will often throw away their vote for a party they don't particularly care for to ensure the other the other guy doesn't win.

 

[Azih]

Last election the Conservatives managed to win a Majority with only a small percentage of the overall votes (37% if I'm not mistaken). That is what it would change. While the conservatives might have still won, they wouldn't have gotten a majority and given free reign to make the wide sweeping changes they are trying to make. It would also help dismantle the popular past-time of strategic voting where people will often throw away their vote for a party they don't particularly care for to ensure the other the other guy doesn't win.

You're looking at it from an overall perspective and in a PR system you're right, the Conservatives would have only gotten around 37% of the seats. The problem is that AV/IRV ain't proportional, works on the *riding level* just like FPTP does, and gives the same distorted results overall.

Take a look at the results from Alberta in the last fed election under FPTP.

http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Federal/41/9/PROVINCE

Conservatives got 66% of the vote, but got 96% of the seats. This is happening because almost every vote for a non Conservative got swamped at the riding level and was thrown away. There were only two local elections where the winner didn't win with more than 50% of the vote and in both of those:

http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Federal/41/2042/DISTRICT
http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Federal/41/2038/DISTRICT

The lead was so huge that they would almost definitely have had enough '2nd choice votes' to get elected under AV/IRV as well.

Riding by riding the results would have been EXACTLY THE SAME under AV/IRV as under FPTP giving the same overall distortion and hundreds of thousands of voters that don't matter at all. It's just different counting to get virtually the same results and the only real difference is that people will 'think' they have more options cause they get to make extra marks on the ballot paper when it's really the same old same old that have any chance of winning.

And that's why the strategic voting pointing is fake too. Sure AV/IRV allows you to put your number 1 mark against the person you really want to represent you, but the number 2 that you're putting down is your vote for the person you don't like to try to prevent the person you hate from getting in which is the exact definition of strategic voting. It institutionalizes strategic voting as standard practice rather than getting rid of it at all. And your choice number 1, whether it be Liberal or Green or NDP in Alberta, still has almost no chance of getting elected just like before but hey at least you'll 'feel' better by being able to vote for them.

It's fake reform.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Didn't they have some crazy parties get in the Australian Senate like the Sports Party and the Sex Party lol. I like Germany's system most, or the system that was about to be implemented in Ontario (similar to New Zealand and Germany) until the Libs deliberately sabotaged it.

MMP failed because it was a terrible idea, not because the government didn't go out of its way to promote it.

 

[fallout]

MMP failed because it was a terrible idea, not because the government didn't go out of its way to promote it.

I would argue that most people didn't even understand what it was. A common complaint I heard was: "It's too much like the United States."

 

[matthewwhatever]

Seriously? Of all the complaints I had against MMP, "being too American" was never one of them. Or even one that I could see being made. That would take some serious mental gymnastics, wouldn't it?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

MMP failed because it was a terrible idea, not because the government didn't go out of its way to promote it.

A large portion of people simply did not know what it even was, I don't understand how you can deny that fact. They voted the option that literally said "Keep what we have now", the safe option. Putting on election day is also very deliberate. A lot of people who knew absolutely nothing about the system went out and voted on it. If the referendum were held on a separate date, then people who actually care would be the ones voting.

And how is the system terrible? It satisfies both representation and proportionality.

 

[matthewwhatever]

It was a terrible idea because it gave even more power to the parties. Having MPPs selected from party lists meant that you would've had an entire class of elected officials who had no constituency, and who owed their entire position to how high they were ranked on their own party lists.

Around the same time as the MMP "debate" was taking place, the federal Conservatives were getting some flak for trying to undermine other parties' MPs by having their own party representatives cover areas in which they didn't have elected Members (i.e. they didn't have Wascana in Saskatchewan, so they would try to undermine Ralph Goodale by directing his constituents with complaints to their own Conservative representatives). I'm pretty sure that with MMP, that would've been an end result.

As for why people didn't vote for MMP, perhaps it was because the whole campaign in favour of it basically amounted to "Vote for this, or you're an idiot." Even though I was totally in favour of electoral reform at the time -- at that point, I'd never voted for a winning candidate in my entire adult life, so I really liked the idea of having my vote count -- I still voted against MMP, because it somehow made FPTP look really good by comparison.

 

[Azih]

The thing is though that parties are *weaker* in places that have things like MMP and Party list. Bashing MMP by making it seem it gives parties even more power was an easy bit of slander (as people hate parties so so much) but it's just not true. Getting full majority power with 37 % of the vote is what gives party leaders the power and intimidating influence that they do more than anything else and that gets taken away with PR even with party list PR.

The Citizen's Assembly that recommended MMP really wanted a little bit more time to tweak the design and they were moving in the direction of making a version that was even more open but they simply ran out of it. It's very possible to make an Open List version of MMP to further weaken whatever influence party leaders have over it.

Even without Open Lists the trick with MMP is that the list MPPs only get in if their party doesn't win enough local MPPs and so the list MPPs are completely dependent on the volatile local results and aren't a 'separate class' at all. There's even an example in Germany where the party leader was running only on the top of the list and not locally at all and didn't even get elected as his party did so well locally that it didn't need any 'list' candidates in parliament. Simply put for any politician to ensure that he/she gets elected (which is what politicians want) they better run both locally and on the list as winning locally is the only way to guarantee that they get the job and they better be responsive to local concerns as well in order to bolster their chances of getting in locally the next time. It motivates politicians to act the right way.

Scotland moved from FPTP to MMP and studies there show that the 'list' MSPs act pretty much the same as local MSPs as far as the local citizens are concerned. It just gives the 'local' MSP some competition as he/she has to content with 'list' MSPs that residents can talk to unlike Canada where your MP/MPP/Councillor has a monopoly over you if you live in their jurisdiction.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I am pretty sure that happens already? If you have a problem you can talk to members from other parties if you believe they will be more sympathetic to your causes and ideas than your local MPP/MP/MLA. There's nothing undemocratic about it.

I wouldn't dare talk to Peter Shurman (Thornhill) about transit. He is vehemently against it unless it's a subway. I'd rather talk to Reza Moridi (Richmond Hill) or the Minister of Transport himself.

Isn't it a good thing that a party is trying to reach out to areas that didn't elect them? It's a pro of MPP. I can live in Haldimand or somewhere in the middle of nowhere where a Conservative was elected, but thanks to the MPP list, there's a Liberal from Haldimand that represents my views better. I can talk to both.

 

[fallout]

Seriously? Of all the complaints I had against MMP, "being too American" was never one of them. Or even one that I could see being made. That would take some serious mental gymnastics, wouldn't it?

It doesn't take mental gymnastics if you're not going to think about it. It wasn't a well-reasoned complaint, but it was a common reaction I got when I was discussing it with people.

I'm not even arguing for or against MMP, but it was pretty clear to me that people didn't understand it.

 

[matthewwhatever]

The Citizen's Assembly that recommended MMP really wanted a little bit more time to tweak the design and they were moving in the direction of making a version that was even more open but they simply ran out of it. It's very possible to make an Open List version of MMP to further weaken whatever influence party leaders have over it.

So basically, you're saying not to judge the version of MMP that was presented, but some idealized version of it that wasn't up for a vote. Got it.

I am pretty sure that happens already? If you have a problem you can talk to members from other parties if you believe they will be more sympathetic to your causes and ideas than your local MPP/MP/MLA. There's nothing undemocratic about it.

I wouldn't dare talk to Peter Shurman (Thornhill) about transit. He is vehemently against it unless it's a subway. I'd rather talk to Reza Moridi (Richmond Hill) or the Minister of Transport himself.

Isn't it a good thing that a party is trying to reach out to areas that didn't elect them? It's a pro of MPP. I can live in Haldimand or somewhere in the middle of nowhere where a Conservative was elected, but thanks to the MPP list, there's a Liberal from Haldimand that represents my views better. I can talk to both.

Maybe I'm just being some crazy idealist here, but I'd rather have an MP (or MPP) that represented all the people in his/her district, not just the ones that share their political affiliation. Under MMP, there's not much reason to reach across the aisle or strive for consensus, because what's the point? You're there to promote your party ideology, not to represent people.

For all its flaws, at least in the current system MPs/MPPs/MLAs are expected to act on behalf of all their constituents. I mean, I loathe my MP (John Baird), and I think he's a terrible person in so, so many ways, but I've never heard anyone say he didn't work hard on behalf of his constituents. If it was MMP, there'd be no incentive for him to work very hard for diehard non-Tory partisans -- and there wouldn't be much reason for the government to take the non-Tory representatives seriously, either, because it wouldn't be in their interests. Why help someone from the other party improve their position? Or, alternatively, if the situation was reversed and we had a Liberal government (and in this scenario, I'm still stuck with Baird): why would they respond at all to the elected MP, when they could just go to the Liberal representative for the area and have him/her get the credit for positive results?

I'm all for parties doing outreach in EDs they don't currently hold. That's the whole point of campaigning. But institutionalizing a system where parties have even less incentive than they do now to help out people that didn't vote for them just seems like an awful idea.

It doesn't take mental gymnastics if you're not going to think about it. It wasn't a well-reasoned complaint, but it was a common reaction I got when I was discussing it with people.

I'm not even arguing for or against MMP, but it was pretty clear to me that people didn't understand it.

They probably didn't, but I don't see why that's a point pro-MMP people like bringing up. To me, the fact no one understood it suggests that the Yes side did a lousy job of selling both the idea and the reasoning behind why we needed to switch, not that the general public didn't have the intellectual curiosity to research alternative systems of voting.

 

[Azih]

So basically, you're saying not to judge the version of MMP that was presented, but some idealized version of it that wasn't up for a vote. Got it.

Nope, right before and right after I defended the MMP system that was presented for a vote as is with examples with how it works in the places where it is actually being used.

If it was MMP, there'd be no incentive for him to work very hard for diehard non-Tory partisans

This doesn't wash, if Baird doesn't shore up his local credentials in Ottawa West and loses the local fight in the next election he's dependent on 1)Conservatives doing bad enough in all other local contests and 2)well enough overall that 3)enough list MPs will be required to get to his position on the list. That's not good odds for him to get in on the list side especially for a big party.

Like I said before, in places where MMP is used, both list and local members of parliament act like each other because the local contest remains the only guaranteed way to get elected.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Majority governments are near impossible in MPP system. I can't imagine this scenario where the leading party is simply not interested in people with different political views.

If people choose not to talk to John Baird then that's his problem. The good thing is that there is someone paying attention, someone who is sympathetic to your views, whether he's conservative or liberal. Baird's feelings may get hurt but that's not important in the grand scheme of things. He's also still accountable to his constituents in your scenario; he has to face them during election time.

Ontario's voter turnout is so disasterous, I don't think you can argue that constituents are at all engaged with their local representative. Some ridings had turnouts of 36%.

As for poor campaign - I'd like to make a minor correction: there was no "yes" side or "no" side. The question was an OR question, and the choices were, try something new that you don't know anything about, or play it safe with what we have now.

The campaign period was too short to inform a large number of people. Bad campaign or good campaign, people did not vote based on knowledge. Elections/referendums should not be decided on how much money was spent, so this inherently makes it a poor election showing.

The fact that the referendum was the same day as election day made sure that the maximum number of people who don't know what they were voting for, voted.

It's the governments job to inform people, and up to citizens make and informed decision, not just any decision.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I don't think the average voter is very engaged by the current system, but I find it kind of funny that you blame MMP's loss on them holding the referendum on a day that they'd get the maximum number of voters.

Besides that, it wasn't the government's job to promote MMP over FPTP. It was just their job to put it on the ballot, not to actively campaign for one system or the other. In fact, considering there was basically no organized No (or no change, or whatever) campaign, I'd say that the MMP side had more than enough opportunity to convince people as to why FPTP had to go. I saw signs advertising the change side, and I got pro-MMP pamphlets in the mail...I'd say that the Yes/change side had more than its fair share of time to inform people about the alternative, but they completely failed in making any compelling arguments as to why change was necessary in the first place.

As for how political parties and politicians would react to switching over to MMP...considering that the general trend in Canadian politics over the last 40 years (and in Ontario, for the last 30) has been towards more polarization, I have a hard time imagining that MMP would've stopped that trend cold and made parties more willing to reach across the aisle, but if you want to believe that, then...well, I'm not going to argue against you having faith in humanity like that, however misguided it may be.

 

[Azih]

I was a part of the 'Yes' campaign back in 2007 as a pretty junior campaigner and, whatever the problem with the campaign organization (and I think there were quite a few), the 'No' side just sat back and spouted flat out lies that were repeated word for word by all the media outlets (Italy! Israel! Party bosses making all the decisions!) without any fact checking at all. I was stopped by one lady asking "It sounds good but why does PR cause chaos wherever it is used?" (Answer: Uh, it doesn't. Majority of democracies worldwide use it.) And I can state that nobody at all was calling the phone line at all in the last days of the campaign so it wasn't like people were aware and looking for more information other than what they might have heard in passing maybe. It was a whole heck of a lot of easy FUD that stuck when anything stuck at all. The fact that we even got 36% of the vote or whatever is despite all that is, in hindsight, kinda encouraging. Felt like shit at the time though.

And it's not so much as trusting in human goodness. It's trusting in the human ability to respond to incentives. When the incentive for a 38% majority vanishes (the most compelling incentive in Canadian politics) the way politicians behave will change as well.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I don't think the average voter is very engaged by the current system, but I find it kind of funny that you blame MMP's loss on them holding the referendum on a day that they'd get the maximum number of voters.

Besides that, it wasn't the government's job to promote MMP over FPTP. It was just their job to put it on the ballot, not to actively campaign for one system or the other. In fact, considering there was basically no organized No (or no change, or whatever) campaign, I'd say that the MMP side had more than enough opportunity to convince people as to why FPTP had to go. I saw signs advertising the change side, and I got pro-MMP pamphlets in the mail...I'd say that the Yes/change side had more than its fair share of time to inform people about the alternative, but they completely failed in making any compelling arguments as to why change was necessary in the first place.

As for how political parties and politicians would react to switching over to MMP...considering that the general trend in Canadian politics over the last 40 years (and in Ontario, for the last 30) has been towards more polarization, I have a hard time imagining that MMP would've stopped that trend cold and made parties more willing to reach across the aisle, but if you want to believe that, then...well, I'm not going to argue against you having faith in humanity like that, however misguided it may be.

Not maximum number of voters, maximum number of uninformed voters. BC HST referendum had 61% turnout, BC election had 49% turnout. To say that an election has maximum turnout is disingenuous. The election actually hampered turnout and discussion of the topic, people were more concerned about the election itself. Of course, a lot of cynics bothered to not vote for any party, and didn't bother to vote in referendum either when they otherwise would have. Also referendums in their nature have a longer voting period (1 to 3 months), an election only has one day. It encourages people to take their time and think instead of making split second decisions.

I didn't say it was their job to promote MPP, I said it was their job to inform. And I don't mean "government" as in the Liberals, I meant Elections Ontario (via funding from Liberals).

If we are going to be talking about 'faith in humanity' then we have to go back to the original argument, where MPs are listening to their constituents with an open ear and constituents always go to their riding's MP when they have an issue/idea? I don't think this is anywhere close to what's actually happening. Many will go straight to the governing party and appropriate ministries before they go to their MP. MPP wouldn't change anything, in fact, it would make it even more representational. If I vote Green, I obviously want a Green to represent me, and a Conservative is likely to ignore me, whether FPTP or MPP.

The German system is mathematically devised in mind with keeping extremists out of power and influence minimal. If you are still convinced that it promotes hyper-partisanship despite 60 years of evidence then I don't know what else to say?

 

[maharg]

.

 

[maharg]

For all its flaws, at least in the current system MPs/MPPs/MLAs are expected to act on behalf of all their constituents. I mean, I loathe my MP (John Baird), and I think he's a terrible person in so, so many ways, but I've never heard anyone say he didn't work hard on behalf of his constituents.

I'm curious, what is this "work for his constituents" John Baird does? Because here, in CPC heartland, you're pretty lucky if you ever even see your MP. They don't even come out to debates at election time.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I didn't say it was their job to promote MPP, I said it was their job to inform. And I don't mean "government" as in the Liberals, I meant Elections Ontario (via funding from Liberals).

What do you mean by inform? It's Elections Ontario's job as an independent, non-partisan agency to let people know when and where to vote, and to let them know who they can vote for. Nothing more. It wasn't up to them to tell people how MMP worked -- that was entirely for the Yes/change side to do, and they clearly didn't. If any of you are arguing that Elections Ontario favoured No MMP over MMP in their communications, go ahead, but otherwise, it just sounds like sour grapes.

As for what MPs do...maybe my view has been skewed from working on Parliament Hill (though, admittedly, that was ten years ago), but I always found that MPs generally put their constituents' needs first and foremost. They obviously wouldn't give speeches that went counter to their party line, but any time we received letters from constituents asking for help with navigating bureaucracy, we'd do it...I'd be shocked if that's not still the case. I know that my mom, a lifelong Liberal, lives in a riding held by the Conservatives provincially, and any time she's needed help with something that falls under provincial jurisdiction, she's been able to go to her MPP and get whatever help she's needed.

If you're saying we need MMP so that you can have your pick of MPs and MPPs from your own party to go to, rather than having to endure the pain of talking to someone from another ideology...I just don't get it. Even under our current system, policies come from parties, and there's nothing stopping people from joining up with a party and pushing for a certain policy, and then hoping the party forms government. I don't see why we'd need to overhaul the voting system for that. If a policy isn't popular enough to get popular traction, then -- unless we're talking about some fundamental human right -- I don't see where the outrage is. It's annoying (and I say that as someone who's voted for the winning party/candidate two or three times, at any level of politics, in the last fifteen years), but that's just how it is. I figure it's on my side to convince a plurality of the population the rightness of my ideas, not to change the rules.

Also, one other thing: yes, we have pitifully low voter turnout at all levels. But seeing as it's only recently that we had a poll where the majority finally said the country was on the wrong track, maybe that's because people either agreed with or were generally indifferent to how they were being governed? I'm not saying that the Conservatives have done a single good thing since they came to power in 2006, but I'd think that if there was that much outrage, it would show up at the ballot box at some point.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

So can anyone give me an explanation for Harper's hard on for Israel? Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Sibylus]

So can anyone give me an explanation for Harper's hard on for Israel? Makes absolutely no sense.

We have the same eschatological Christians here, there's just fewer of them and they tend to be a bit less influential.

To elaborate: one of the predictions drawn out of the Book of Revelation (the last in the New Testament) is that the nations of the world will wage war against Israel, and in so doing be brought to ruin by the intervention of God.

 

[GSG Flash]

Harper's statements today at the Knesset really annoyed me. Nothing good comes out of defending illegal settlements/land grabs and accusing legit criticisms of Israel of being anti semitic.

Even Israelis thought he went overboard. It's almost like Netanyahu has compromising pictures of Harper.

 

[matthewwhatever]

We have the same eschatological Christians here, there's just fewer of them and they tend to be a bit less influential.

To elaborate: one of the predictions drawn out of the Book of Revelation (the last in the New Testament) is that the nations of the world will wage war against Israel, and in so doing be brought to ruin by the intervention of God.

An evangelical once explained to me that they also believe that the End Times can only come about (and Jesus can only come back) when all the Jews have returned to Israel, so there's that as well. It's called Christian Zionist, and there's a good chance it's one of Harper's core foreign policy beliefs.

 

[gutter_trash]

when a Canadian Prime Minister gets more Right Wing about Israel than a US President...

 

[maharg]

As for what MPs do...maybe my view has been skewed from working on Parliament Hill (though, admittedly, that was ten years ago), but I always found that MPs generally put their constituents' needs first and foremost. They obviously wouldn't give speeches that went counter to their party line, but any time we received letters from constituents asking for help with navigating bureaucracy, we'd do it...I'd be shocked if that's not still the case. I know that my mom, a lifelong Liberal, lives in a riding held by the Conservatives provincially, and any time she's needed help with something that falls under provincial jurisdiction, she's been able to go to her MPP and get whatever help she's needed.

To me this isn't "helping their constituents" so much as "pretending to be the Godfather". It's pure ego stroke. How many of the 25k plus people who voted for Baird do you think ever get the opportunity to take advantage of this weird personal valet-style service? Let alone the 27k or so who didn't and probably wouldn't even think to ask.

Serving their constituents would be acting in their best interests in parliament and representing their riding to it effectively. Some do this and some don't, and I'm not saying any one party is better or worse than the others, but I think we're long past it being a major feature of our parliamentary democracy (if it ever was one).

 

[Azih]

Well we're not talking about the, in my view, imagined failings of party list PR anymore matthew but instead about the principles behind voting systems. I think a lot of it comes down to this quote

I figure it's on my side to convince a plurality of the population the rightness of my ideas, not to change the rules.

As a voting citizen it shouldn't be my job to convince a plurality of people in the arbitrarily defined geography of my riding of anything. My job is to vote and then it is the purpose of the voting system to, as much as possible, translate my vote into representation for me in parliament/city council/whatever. That is the most basic principle behind the whole idea of representative democracy and it is something that the current rules completely fail at. The makeup of parliament does NOT resemble how people vote at all and in a loose federation like ours this is incredibly damaging.

There should be 8 or so MPs from Alberta that aren't Conservatives, and one of them should be Green for example. If that actually was the case then the Albertain caucus would actually be a nuanced and realistic reflection of how Albertans actually are rather than the cartoon caricature (including bonus Redmonton!) that they look like if you go by what the crazy FPTP rules determine reflects the province.

We would NEVER have had the bizarre specter of the BQ being the official opposition despite getting fewer votes than three other parties. The party has NEVER been as strong within Quebec as the voting system made them look in the first place with the obvious unfortunate fallout there has been in misconceptions and absurd generalizations.

The quote that best exemplifies representative democracy for me is: “In a democratic government the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all.” The current system fails both of these spectacularly (and AV/IRV does as well) and the majority of attacks against alternative PR systems is imaginary FUD.

 

[gabbo]

when a Canadian Prime Minister gets more Right Wing about Israel than a US President...

...What little influence we had in the region goes right out the window.

 

[diaspora]

So... who's going to the Montreal convention in February?

 

[Zombie James]

 

[Sibylus]

Strahl adamant about innocence... resigns: https://twitter.com/dmatthewmillar/status/426832793448898560/photo/1

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/polit...ed-as-leader-who-would/37178?page_requested=1

The Forum Research survey, however, also found that Mr. Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) leads when voters are asked which of the leaders would make the best Prime Minister. Twenty nine per cent of the Forum respondents chose Mr. Mulcair, 25 per cent favoured Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and 19 per cent selected Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.).

Asked if they approved or disapproved of the job Mr. Harper is doing as Prime Minister, 62 per cent of the respondents disapproved, and only 30 per cent approved.

Meanwhile, 44 per cent of the respondents approved of the way Mr. Mulcair was doing his job as leader of the opposition and only 28 per cent disapproved. Forty-five per cent of the respondents approved of the way Mr. Trudeau is doing his job as Liberal leader and 36 per cent disapproved.

Despite the support for Mr. Mulcair, the Forum Research survey last week found 37 per cent of the voters who responded were leaning in favour of voting Liberal or intended to vote Liberal, 28 per cent were leaning or decided in favour of the Conservatives, but only 25 per cent were leaning or intending to vote NDP.

Well isn't that interesting. If we had presidential republic it seems that Mulcair would be President with a Liberal Parliament. Unfortunately that's not how it is. It'll be interesting to see if Mulcair can translate his own popularity into popularity for his party.

 

[gabbo]

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/polit...ed-as-leader-who-would/37178?page_requested=1



Well isn't that interesting. If we had presidential republic it seems that Mulcair would be President with a Liberal Parliament. Unfortunately that's not how it is. It'll be interesting to see if Mulcair can translate his own popularity into popularity for his party.

Isn't he about to go on a cross-country tour/photo op? Kiss some babies, eat at local diners, partake in some light-hearted manual labour, etc.

 

[firehawk12]

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politi...ge_requested=1

Well isn't that interesting. If we had presidential republic it seems that Mulcair would be President with a Liberal Parliament. Unfortunately that's not how it is. It'll be interesting to see if Mulcair can translate his own popularity into popularity for his party.

Mulcair pretty much owned the Senate scandal with his attacks, so that's not surprising. By virtue of being the third party, all Trudeau could really do was say "me too".

 

[Azih]

The Libs and the NDP tend to campaign on almost identical platforms as the libs trot out their left wing leaners to campaign while the Ndp bring out their centrists. The problem with the dippers has always been a knee jerk 'ew NDP' from many. Layton cracked that wall pretty badly and Mulcair has at least widened it. Is it enough though? The 2015 elections are kinda wide open at this point.

 

[CitizenVectron]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-to-remove-senators-from-liberal-caucus-1.2515273

Justin Trudeau has booted all Senators from the Liberal Caucus.

This is an interesting move, and leaves the other party with Senators (Conservative Party) in an awkward situation. They also have traditionally preferred reform to abolition (though are looking into abolition now), but they also like to appoint the same cronies and hacks that have always been appointed by the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. If they don't follow suit, this could be used against them in the next election. But doing it will enrage party fundraisers and major supports who expect to be appointed from within the party, as has been tradition (as I am sure many Liberals are furious in the same way right now, especially the Senators now just booted).

Personally, I think the best solution to the Senate question is to simply stop appointing new Senators. Within a decade the majority will be gone, and within 3 they all will be (or sooner, if given buy-out options to retire). Otherwise I can't see it being abolished without a constitutional amendment, which will never be passed.

Or if that is not possible, then make Senate appointments similar to judicial appointments: Have a neutral, independent committee (made up of experts, judges, etc) come up with a list of nominees for each province when a seat is vacated, and have the Prime Minister choose from that last. That way only experts and elder statesmen are appointed, and not hacks and cronies.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I think I like it. I've always bought into the notion of the Senate as being a place for sober second thought and all that, and there are places where Senators can do good work with a longer view in mind. I can see abolishing parties going a decent way towards accomplishing that, even if, realistically, it's hard to imagine there won't be plenty of coordination between political parties and senators.

 

[gabbo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-to-remove-senators-from-liberal-caucus-1.2515273

Justin Trudeau has booted all Senators from the Liberal Caucus.

An interesting move, but lwts see how it plays out for him and the party before calling the Senate dead.

 

[CitizenVectron]

I think I like it. I've always bought into the notion of the Senate as being a place for sober second thought and all that, and there are places where Senators can do good work with a longer view in mind. I can see abolishing parties going a decent way towards accomplishing that, even if, realistically, it's hard to imagine there won't be plenty of coordination between political parties and senators.

This is why I think it's important to remove partisan appointees altogether. Make it more like the courts.

 

[Sibylus]

I want to like it, but the reaction from the Senators seem to belie that it'll amount to much (at least right now).

 

[matthewwhatever]

This is why I think it's important to remove partisan appointees altogether. Make it more like the courts.

If it leads to a Senate full of intelligent, engaged people that are representative of the population as a whole, I'd be all for that.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Or if that is not possible, then make Senate appointments similar to judicial appointments: Have a neutral, independent committee (made up of experts, judges, etc) come up with a list of nominees for each province when a seat is vacated, and have the Prime Minister choose from that last. That way only experts and elder statesmen are appointed, and not hacks and cronies.

I like this idea, although 105 people might be a bit too much. A smaller senate would be easier to fill with quality candidates, and each senator would perhaps be more recognizable and significant.

PS. Senator Hadfield

 

[gabbo]

I like this idea, although 105 people might be a bit too much. A smaller senate would be easier to fill with quality candidates.

PS. Senator Hadfield

Smaller? Quebec and Alberta will going into hysterics if somehow the number goes down.

 

[Sibylus]

I do like the idea of the Senate as a technocratic body, provided appointments are actually qualifications and not "hurr this guy has my favoured party affiliation".

 

[firehawk12]

It doesn't matter though. If the Conservatives win, they keep their majority in the Senate anyway. If the Liberals somehow win, suddenly Trudeau is forced to deal with an obstructionist Senate that probably will go out of its way to slow things down as much as possible.
God knows what happens if the NDP win. But that seems less and less likely these days anyway.

Oh yeah, now that the Conservatives managed to piss off Veterans, how the hell are they going to spin that one?

 

[killer rin]

Oh yeah, now that the Conservatives managed to piss off Veterans, how the hell are they going to spin that one?

Wait, what. When did that happen?

 

[firehawk12]

Wait, what. When did that happen?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vet...elt-disrespected-at-fantino-meeting-1.2513837

 

[Azih]

The Conservatives have pissed off everybody at one time or another. They get by because the scandals happen early enough that everybody somehow... forgets about them in a few months and long before an election happens. Democracy is weird.

 

[CitizenVectron]

The Conservatives have pissed off everybody at one time or another. They get by because the scandals happen early enough that everybody somehow... forgets about them in a few months and long before an election happens. Democracy is weird.

It's more to do with the bases for each party. The CPC has a base of 25-30% of the country that has no other voting option close to their core beliefs. So while the remaining 70% generally lean to the centre or left (and maybe 10-20% in the centre can be persuaded to vote CPC or Liberal, depending on the situation), the CPC has the strongest base by far. All they need is 10% of the remaining electorate to vote for them to clinch victories, whereas the Liberals and NDP need larger swings.

The people that the CPC make mad with scandals already wouldn't vote for them, so that's why scandals affect them less than they would the NDP or Liberals, who have softer but wider support.