AlexMeloche
Member
Gaétan Barrette as Minister of Health.
*sigh*
*sigh*
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
That's the scariest thing about today's result.
Frustrated_me
Member
:lol
equippedwithtowel
Member
Well I hope that pans out for you.
On the other hand: Fuck Yeah, score one for the federalists!
Ugh. I can't associate with these people. Change the damn slogan. These people don't remember anything. Also change the system. 40% votes shouldn't give you a landslide majority. Get a 2-turn system like France so the vote isn't split or something. Same for Federal. NDP/Liberal vote being split isn't representative of the people's desire. It's not the best democratic system.
This is a sad night.
Also, this ''charte'' was an invented issue. The referendum talk was not a priority right now. I didn't vote PQ. I didn't vote CAQ or PLQ either.
This is a sad night.
Also, this ''charte'' was an invented issue. The referendum talk was not a priority right now. I didn't vote PQ. I didn't vote CAQ or PLQ either.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
If one probably wish he had lost, it's PKP. Not only did his party lose, but he won, and the party won't want him after such a defeat. There is no way the PQ can win with him, and as I predicted he is stuck having backed independence. He can't even try to lead the PQ to get the CAQ votes with that. He has nothing to gain anymore staying at the PQ.
No, PR is unfair trash, introduce IRV instead.
I got a lot of family and friends to leave Videotron because of his candidacy. Stupid.
Rich dudes tend to have a hard time taking advice from others. Especially the ones that were born rich but think they made their additional millions purely due to talent and 'hard work'. PKP seems like that kind of guy.
equippedwithtowel
Member
Straight PR would be a shitshow.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
He is super dumb, I doubt he ever had to take a sound decision, his fortune was all made by his father who was undeniably highly clever/shrewd, but he is not.
And tonight he already talked about "productivity", which shows his right-leaning tendency and that he will try to win back CAQ votes, but you can kiss that goodbye. His only chance would be to get a stalinist-backing from PQ members and huge scandals against the PLQ, and even then I think it would play more in the hands of other parties than the PQ.
So glad the separatists got slapped hard. Hopefully they finally come back down to earth.
Not sure if serious...
This is like the most delusional damage control I have ever seen. the PLQ is going to be stronger than ever after this election.
Not sure if serious...
This is like the most delusional damage control I have ever seen. the PLQ is going to be stronger than ever after this election.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I bet she wants to lose. Pequistes want her head, she won't be comfortable sitting beside them in the National Assembly.
Well she's done now. She's losing by 700.
Bye bye Pauline.
edit: make it 800 now. A 1000 votes swing in the last 20 minutes.
Good riddance.
I mean, she'd still be there if she didn't call an election because the polls were good. She should have just kept going and do what Quebecers asked her to do ; to govern, but in co-operation with the others. But alas, she just wanted to take her ball and go home. Well...bye.
But now we're majority Libs.
...
Goddammit do people have a short memory.
BigJonsson
Member
Wow, the Canadian pollsters finally got one right lol
There's no way to get PR that wouldn't castrate non-urban centers worse than they are already. IRV is FPTP with better math.
Not true at all. Look up STV and MMP. Both maintain the same amount of legislators per region as the current system. They are regional versions of PR. The same candidates tend to 'win' in both FPTP and IRV, so what's the damn point of changing the system if the same people get in?
I didn't see or hear him mentioned, but did the Sun Media asshat win his seat?
Who gets in is irrelevant as long as they're chosen fairly.
Who gets in is the only thing that matters. An election in a representative democracy is a means of turning votes into representatives. FPTP and IRV take the same votes and return pretty much the same representatives. They're the same kind of system. I have no idea how you can state that one of them is fine while the other isn't. They're both equally as 'fair' as the other and both leave masses of voters unrepresented in parliament. Not fair by any definition I understand.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Hopefully he can disassociate himself in a proactive manner.
The media needs to stop using the word "throwing under the bus" when really it is "disciplining". It's important that leaders dissociate from corrupt elements, there is no "shame" or "harshness" about it. If I do bad at my job I expect to get demoted, fired or disciplined or something. Why is it different in politics?
Each community in this country chooses to have someone represent their interests federally- and fairly; STV doesn't work for this while both IRV and the current FPTP system does while MMP sits behind them with straight up PR being the worst option of all. A minority of people in a community wanted a candidate to represent them, and they lost. That is fair by every definition of the word. Majority governments for any party have the approval of a majority in the house determined by the fact that each and every one of those members were chosen by their community to represent them- IRV at least ensures that each and every one of the MPs chosen are done so with a clearer mandate.
Four years.
The first year will probably be scandal-ridden (UPAC + Commission). So three years after that.
I've thought about this too. But the other way mainly, and specifically in Ontario since the federal and provincial elections are both in October 2015. Will Trudeau's popularity save the Ontario Liberals?
As for the PLQ, I don't think it'll have much of an effect on the federal election.
gutter_trash
Banned
we enter 4 years of peace, 4 years of NORMAL and 4 years of tranquility.
I am happy.
The PQ ran a dirty campaign and used identity wedge issues to try to rally up the majority. Their were vile and repugnent.
Dr. Couillard's calm compusre will be a breath of fresh air.
Ether cry
look all them separatist tears
I am happy.
The PQ ran a dirty campaign and used identity wedge issues to try to rally up the majority. Their were vile and repugnent.
Dr. Couillard's calm compusre will be a breath of fresh air.
Ether cry
look all them separatist tears
gutter_trash
Banned
na na na na... hey ey ey... googbye!
Pauline Marois (35 years of usage, worst Minister of Health, worst Minister of Education, worst Premiere ever)
Diane De Courcy (vile attempt to strengthen Bill 101 under Bill 14 with mondo language restrictions. Thank God you failed due to a minority government)
Léo Bureau-Blouin (student leader, Red Square pots banger turned opportunist PQ candidate)
Martine Desjardins (student leader, Red Square pots banger turned opportunist PQ candidate)
Bertrand St-Arnaud (Justice Minister who failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, failed to defend minorities against the discriminatory measure in the Charter of Values. And for making up a story of an Ontario Invasion)
Pierre Duchesne (former journalist turned PQ propagandist,)
Nicholas Marceau (buck toothed)
Réjean Hébert (minister of health blocked suburbans from going to city hospitals, cutting funding for cancer funding in city hospitals)
na na na na... hey ey ey... googbye!
Pauline Marois (35 years of usage, worst Minister of Health, worst Minister of Education, worst Premiere ever)
Diane De Courcy (vile attempt to strengthen Bill 101 under Bill 14 with mondo language restrictions. Thank God you failed due to a minority government)
Léo Bureau-Blouin (student leader, Red Square pots banger turned opportunist PQ candidate)
Martine Desjardins (student leader, Red Square pots banger turned opportunist PQ candidate)
Bertrand St-Arnaud (Justice Minister who failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, failed to defend minorities against the discriminatory measure in the Charter of Values. And for making up a story of an Ontario Invasion)
Pierre Duchesne (former journalist turned PQ propagandist,)
Nicholas Marceau (buck toothed)
Réjean Hébert (minister of health blocked suburbans from going to city hospitals, cutting funding for cancer funding in city hospitals)
na na na na... hey ey ey... googbye!
MeBecomingI
Member
Just got home from a date so I didn't get to watch the results as they were happening... not only did it go well, but the PQ got fucking hammered too! Fantastic night!
Yep, he won his riding.
Not currently.
Why not?
No they don't. If a candidate wins with 51% of the vote, what the hell happens to the 49% that voted for someone else? How is it fair to those voters that they don't get you know, represented in what is supposed to be a representative democracy?
See this is by far the ugliest thing about single winner take all style systems like FPTP and IRV. They turn voters into 'winners' and 'losers'. This is perverse bullshit. Candidates should win and lose, Parties should win and lose. They're the ones that in a representative democracy are competing. That's their job. That's not the voter's job. Voters are supposed to vote for the party and/or candidate that best represents the direction they want the country to move in and, as much as possible, get represented. That's it. That's what's fair. To turn those who aren't even competing into 'winners' and 'losers' is insane.
The problems with this sort of bizarre mindset are obvious. Why does someone voting in Alberta for the Green Party not deserve to be represented? Is there something less worthy about them? Are they deserving to be the 'losers' that both IRV and FPTP turn them into?
Is it fair that election campaigns devolve to focusing on a minority of 'swing ridings' while other areas of the country get far less attention? Are swing riding voters more worthy of attention for some democratic reason that I'm failing to understand? Is it fair that the wasted votes from the riding level accumulate to create bizarrely distorted accumulated results at the provincial and federal level?
Here is the result from the last federal election in Alberta:
http://www.wastedvotes.ca/?q=node/2/Federal/41/9/PROVINCE
A good 1/3rd of the population didn't want to be represented by the Conservatives. Where the hell is their representation in Ottawa? Is it in any way healthy to consider those voters 'permanent losers'' that you seem to? Wouldn't it be a hell of a good thing for Canada that the people who REPRESENT ALBERTA actually REFLECT the diversity of political opinion in the province rather than the cartoonish caricature that FPTP does and IRV would elect?
And what about the absolute rank stupidity of a party that gets less than 40% of the vote claiming it has a mandate to do whatever the hell it wants for four years. It's ridiculous.
The right of decision belongs to the majority but the right of representation belongs to all is the quote for representative democracy and IRV and FPTP style systems fail spectacularly by BOTH MEASURES.
gutter_trash
Banned
The Liberals won seats in l areas that are 99.9% francohpone such as Roberval, Iles-de-la-Madelaine, Beauce-Sud, most Quebec City ridings, and Riviers-du-Loup
The Liberals are not just a party of ''immigrants'', they won ridings that have zero immigrants.
Couillard will be the Premiere for all Quebec
And also Charlevoix voted Liberal against Pauline in her own riding, another 99% francophone riding.
The Liberals are not just a party of ''immigrants'', they won ridings that have zero immigrants.
Couillard will be the Premiere for all Quebec
And also Charlevoix voted Liberal against Pauline in her own riding, another 99% francophone riding.
equippedwithtowel
Member
STV is a fine system. Much better than FPTP by any metric.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
STV relies on changing district magnitude, which is more of a challenge. If we're talking about upending the system enough to do STV we can look into broader PR systems.
As an incremental reform that requires relatively few macro-level changes, IRV guards against vote splitting, strategic voting and plurality victories and requires no changes to district magnitude. That's what I'd do short-term.
The partisan impact of IRV would probably be to empower the left politically and reduce the game theoretic advantage the Alliance and PCs got from merging. I suspect it'd also prevent a resurgence of the Bloc as it would likely reduce issue salience of sovereignty as a "second axis" on the political compass. It'd certainly result in weaker mandates and more coalition or minority governments, but I'm not sure it'd add to the ENP much in the short term. Unfortunately, this outcome is exactly why it's not likely that IRV would take off--not only because the federal Conservatives are in power, but also because such reforms would probably happen at the provincial level and many provinces have PC or Conservative parties who are close enough to the federal CPC to try to torpedo this.
This is to some extent relying on a linguistic game; someone voting in Alberta for the Green Party does deserve to be represented, but representation is not as simple as translating a vote into a seat. People vote for parties not to support the parties, but as a proxy for some ideological beliefs that they want to see represented. As a result, representation does not mean "my guy wins", it means "the candidate in power is sensitive to my perspective and values"--ie minimal ideological distance between voter and representative across the population. IRV, by reducing the costs of voting ideologically for strategic reasons, will result in an elected candidate which is closer in average ideological distance from the voters as an aggregate than FPTP. And because voters know this, and candidates know they can't win by locking down a dedicated plurality vote but instead need to have at least moderate appeal to a majority of voters, candidates will theoretically adjust their views to be more representative of the majority of voters rather than divisive.
None of this is me poo-pooing broader reforms like STV or more aggressive proportionate systems. Just stating that IRV offers improvements over today's system while being an achievable change.
As an incremental reform that requires relatively few macro-level changes, IRV guards against vote splitting, strategic voting and plurality victories and requires no changes to district magnitude. That's what I'd do short-term.
The partisan impact of IRV would probably be to empower the left politically and reduce the game theoretic advantage the Alliance and PCs got from merging. I suspect it'd also prevent a resurgence of the Bloc as it would likely reduce issue salience of sovereignty as a "second axis" on the political compass. It'd certainly result in weaker mandates and more coalition or minority governments, but I'm not sure it'd add to the ENP much in the short term. Unfortunately, this outcome is exactly why it's not likely that IRV would take off--not only because the federal Conservatives are in power, but also because such reforms would probably happen at the provincial level and many provinces have PC or Conservative parties who are close enough to the federal CPC to try to torpedo this.
Azih said:
This is to some extent relying on a linguistic game; someone voting in Alberta for the Green Party does deserve to be represented, but representation is not as simple as translating a vote into a seat. People vote for parties not to support the parties, but as a proxy for some ideological beliefs that they want to see represented. As a result, representation does not mean "my guy wins", it means "the candidate in power is sensitive to my perspective and values"--ie minimal ideological distance between voter and representative across the population. IRV, by reducing the costs of voting ideologically for strategic reasons, will result in an elected candidate which is closer in average ideological distance from the voters as an aggregate than FPTP. And because voters know this, and candidates know they can't win by locking down a dedicated plurality vote but instead need to have at least moderate appeal to a majority of voters, candidates will theoretically adjust their views to be more representative of the majority of voters rather than divisive.
None of this is me poo-pooing broader reforms like STV or more aggressive proportionate systems. Just stating that IRV offers improvements over today's system while being an achievable change.
It's a theory that doesn't really pan out at all. The Australian House of Commons uses IRV and it's a vicious and partisan place with no moderation or cooperation or conciliation. Going back to the poor Greens in Alberta example, since Conservatives can run doorknobs that comfortably get 45 - 50+% of the vote in most ridings (pretty much guaranteeing that they'll win in IRV just as they do in FPTP) they don't need to moderate or change anything. The math of the game has changed, but the rules haven't.
As well there is no recorded instance anywhere of reforming to IRV leading to a reform to an actually fair PR system. Voting reform isn't like civil rights reform with a spectrum from 'less fair' to 'more fair' with a slow but consistent slog of going from one side to the other. Instead each voting system is its own deal and any reform to another system either sticks or is repealed if it doesn't work, reverting to the old system and that's it for reform for another generation. Simply put there is no good reason to believe that going to IRV will lead to PR.
Strategic voting also is not eliminated at all by IRV, it's institutionalized. That's what the second vote is. It's a vote for someone who you don't want to be represented by to prevent someone you hate from getting elected just like in FPTP. Now sure it's nice that you get to use your first vote for the person you really want to win but the sad newsflash is that if that's a candidate who had no hope of winning under FPTP then they almost certainly have no hope of winning under IRV. You may get the 'satisfaction' of voting for who you really want, but the same old same old will get in. It's the ultimate in sham reform; it feels like things are better but in reality they've stayed pretty much the same.
I mean compare the Australian House of Reps (IRV) to the Australian Senate (STV PR). In IRV the Greens won more than 8% of the vote and elected.... 1 person (0.6%, and doesn't that sound really familiar to the Canadian House of Commons) while in the Senate the same percent got them 10% of the available seats. In Australia, at least, IRV is a sham.
And there is experience in Canada with using IRV at the provincial level. Here is a great blog that summarizes research on the experience of B.C, Alberta, and Manitoba when they experimented with STV
http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04/03/artificial-preferences/
The conclusion?
Bolded and Italicized is mine as it really shows the sham part of the reform. Freedom to use the first vote how you want it makes a more diverse set of candidates think they can win as compared to FPTP. But they don't
We don't need to rely on theory of 'what might happen' if we go to IRV. We know. It'll look pretty much the same as what we have now with the bonus of actual real reform being put on the backburner for decades.
Nah, he'll be the premier of the rich people just like Pauline and Charest were. The PR people changed but the masters are still the rich corporations like Power Corp, Enbridge and so on.
It's not like we had an amazing choice to make. The crazy right wing nationalist folks or the crazy corrupted folks. You vote for the less worse since you don't have any much power otherwise just like we did last time after the riots and strikes. CAQ could have been an alternative but they ran out of time.
Best thing that happened is that Daniel Breton lost to Manon Massé. He exactly did the opposite of what he preached before being in the government.
Happy that Martine Desjardins and Léo Bureau-Blouin lost. They were more or less traitors. When you lead one of the biggest student movement in the history of the province you don't go ahead and join a party that goes against what you fought fore.
Disappointed that Lisée and Drainville were elected again. They were at the very root of the cause that turned the social climate into a mess over here. Their charter was more or less demagogy that quickly turned into xenophobia. Deserved.
On that front it seems we're are following a pattern. Liberals caused a social unrest on university fees -> social disaster -> electoral lost where Charest lost in his own riding -> PQ caused a social mess on their charter of values -> social unrest -> electoral lost where Marois loses in her own riding.
Disappointed that Gaétan Barette won. He's basically a turncoat that was shopping for a minister of health job. Joined a team he pretty much lambasted in the previous election. He's there for the power and only for that.
It's pretty much business as usual anyway for me. Can't get really angry or happy about it as the result will pretty much be the same for me I guess.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think the Ontario Liberals are fucked, unless the PCs fuck up even worse (like the BC election, haha).
Totally unrelated, but QS as a party sounds really awesome. It's too bad about the whole separatist thing. It seems like you are a leftist/socialist in Quebec but don't want to bother with nationhood, you're kind of screwed.
gutter_trash
Banned
yes Vamphuntr, everybody else is far right (rolls eyes)
Quebec is the most left leaning province-state in North America. PLQ rarely does any reforms on existing social programs, they usually maintain them.
overall, Quebec is still pretty Center-Left compared to the rest of Canada, even the PLQ talking about economy and blablal still maintains existing programs without touching them
that is not Center-Right, that isn't Right, that is not Far-Right by a long shot
I know people on the Far-Left like to label EVERYONE else as Right-Wing
Quebec is the most left leaning province-state in North America. PLQ rarely does any reforms on existing social programs, they usually maintain them.
overall, Quebec is still pretty Center-Left compared to the rest of Canada, even the PLQ talking about economy and blablal still maintains existing programs without touching them
that is not Center-Right, that isn't Right, that is not Far-Right by a long shot
I know people on the Far-Left like to label EVERYONE else as Right-Wing
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked