Support NeoGAF

[Kabuki Waq]

They should make the vote a national one. You'd get your independence in an instant, believe me.

Thats damn right.....

 

[BigJonsson]

awww shit

the NDP lost seats that everyone thought they had won :/

Now the Bloc will have to be in the coalition

 

[Socreges]

awww shit

the NDP lost seats that everyone thought they had won :/

Now the Bloc will have to be in the coalition

Huh?

As of 12:35am PST:

LIB 135 CPC 98 BQ 54 NDP 20 OTH 1

 

[SickBoy]

http://enr.elections.ca/Provinces_e.aspx

More election comments tomorrow. Sleepy now.

-SB

 

[Saturnman]

I've never been to Quebec and I don't have any ill feelings towards it. :-\ I don't really know the reasons for seperation outside of wanting to exercise their own culture and not being considered "Canadian" since the culture is pretty different as is. I guess if people living in the province really want to seperate that badly though, maybe we should let them. The Canadian map would look weird if that happened though...

I know a couple of Sovereignists who don't really care about the language and culture issue, they want to separate from the right-wing political culture of North America. They view seperation as a way to prevent people like Harper from deciding their future should the ROC vote him in office.

 

[Mike Works]

I know a couple of Sovereignists who don't really care about the language and culture issue, they want to separate from the right-wing political culture of North America.

I admit to knowing little about politics, but is that really a valid enough reason to seperate? Aren't the liberals left wing? I'm probably missing something here.

 

[suikodan]

It is certain that I'm not against separation except that I do not really believe in it anymore.

In 1980, Canada was almost debt-free and the vote didn't pass.
In 1995, the economic situation wasn't very good and the vote didn't pass neither.

Now in 200X, people would think that the economic situation would be better for Quebec to separate?

I sure like being a Quebecer, but I do not dislike being a french canadian.

 

[Saturnman]

I admit to knowing little about politics, but is that really a valid enough reason to seperate? Aren't the liberals left wing? I'm probably missing something here.

Valid? I don't know, but notice how the Conservatives are completely unable to make gains in this province. Harper's party is seen with much hostility by a large section of the population. If he had won the election, especially with a majority, seperatist feelings would have skyrocketed over here.

The Liberals are mostly a center party. It veeered a bit more to the right ever since Paul Martin took over. Quebecers still like the man, they don't like his policies too much though and distrust him more ever since the sponsorship scandal.

 

[Suranga3]

Just heard on the news that harper is considering leaving the conservative leadership. Guess he realized that he's too far right for mainstream canada.

 

[Memles]

Just heard on the news that harper is considering leaving the conservative leadership. Guess he realized that he's too far right for mainstream canada.

Get Bernard Lord in there, and they'll have a chance at a majority next time.

 

[FightyF]

The 'Reform' thing to is to start pointing fingers and blaming others.

During that Ian Hanomansing post-election show, they had some webcammers chime in, and this guy from Red Deer went on a tirade and sarcastically thanked the Maritimes for the way they voted. Yes...let's blame it all on the Maritimes.

I agree, the CPC could have made some decent gains there, but that didn't cost the Conservatives the election.

I can't use this forum as a measuring stick or an accurate poll but it seems to me that a lot of people here consider the CPC party as the Reform/Alliance under a 3rd banner. It's just the impression I got, and it hurt more than helped. It seems that if it weren't for the CPC's image of extreme social conservatism, more people would have given the party a chance.

I'll need some ketchup to help me eat my words (about Harper celebrating). Most people looking at this objectively would have predicted a Liberal minority government as the outcome...I guess I was caught up in the hype of the Calgary papers.

 

[Gorgie]

Ontario decided this election. I guess too many people bought into the Liberal scary threats of a Conservative future, and instead rewards the party that spends our dollars as if they were their own.

Fucking Ontario

 

[Warm Machine]

I voted Liberal in Vancouver. I just didn't like the conservative policies and I sure as shit didn't like the idea of the NDP treating capital gains tax like regular income!

I was tempted in vote either Communist or Christian Action Party though.

 

[maharg]

Eh even in Alberta the two Liberal seats stayed liberal. At least, I think they did. If not then Annie was celebrating a bit too quickly.

 

[Suranga3]

C'mon now, people are going crazy in the conservative camp. They won more seats than they did last election, caused the liberals a majority and installed a decent sized base to build upon. Don't be so bitter, things could have been worse.

 

[Gorgie]

Eh even in Alberta the two Liberal seats stayed liberal. At least, I think they did. If not then Annie was celebrating a bit too quickly.

Yes, they both stay Liberal, but both wins were very close, and the other Liberal David, only won by 32 votes so a recount is under way.

 

[Fatghost]

Liberal 135 + NDP 19 = 154

Conservative 99 + Bloc 54 = 153

In other words, the Bloc is one riding away from holding the balance of power? I'm not sure I understand the system properly.

Actually, the Liberals only have 134 seats in practice. As government party, the Libs have to appoint one of their MPs as Speaker of the House. The Speaker does not vote, so the Liberals only end up with 134 voting seats.

 

[maharg]

Yes, they both stay Liberal, but both wins were very close, and the other Liberal David, only won by 32 votes so a recount is under way.

Yeah, there's no doubt that confidence was shaken overall, but it seems to me that it really was overall. Blaming ontario is silly when even with shaken confidence, there are still 2 lib seats in Alberta, the Land of the Blue.

I think probably Anne got it right in something she said, though I don't remember the exact quote. She said that Canadians seem to feel that the Liberals did wrong, and that it needs to be improved, but that overall people don't seem to feel the Conservatives are the ones to do it. The minority government sends a message to the liberals, and while it may all be talk they clearly at least HEAR the message.

What happened to the NDP btw? When I stopped watching the CPC were at 95 and the NDP at 23 or 24 (and it stayed stable for quite a while). Did the CPC pull some of their seats out from under them?

 

[Malakhov]

Liberals lost a seat to a recount today I believe.

 

[explodet]

Is Harper REALLY reconsidering his role as leader? The Conservatives lost, but it's not like they got smeared, or completely shut out of Ontario. I'm not sure yet another leadership race for the Conservatives will be a good thing.

Then again, Harper has been branded a boogeyman by quite a few. That label may not peel off so easily.

 

[SickBoy]

I hate to bring a discussion back from the dead after a day, but I really wanted to reply to this one, since it’s an issue I’ve railed about in a lot of different arenas.

I really really cannot understand why everyone is so keen on proportional representation. As far as I can tell, there is no way to work it such that you have a fully proportional system where the party members have any personal responsibility. I've heard a suggestion along the lines of that if a party gets 45% of the popular vote, 45% of the legislature is made up of members of that party.

First of all, I do want to make the point that I think a lot of Canadians aren’t asking for a “fully proportional system,” rather a system of mixed proportional representation, with a portion of seats determined by regional votes and a portion determined through proportionality. But I think you raise some interesting questions (that I completely disagree with – no offense) about what a true proportional system means.

So who are those members then accountable to? Do they just vote along party lines, in which case we may as well just vote four or five people into a tiny little legislature. Where does the ability to remove someone who you don't agree with from office, whether you like their party or not, come in? Not to mention, how do we say who we want to make up the party we vote for?

I see a lot of people gung ho about it, but I don't see a lot of actual solutions described. I understand that you don't want your vote lost, but it seems to me that purely proportional would be asking for less choice rather than more (like david kilgore in Edmonton South is supposedly against gay marriage, but in every other way a Liberal. How does that translate?).

Devil’s advocate first, my real answer later: Who are your MPs accountable to now? How much right do we have to kick out someone we hate? A lot of Canadians can’t stand Sheila Copps. But she ran and she won and she ran and she won in Hamilton until Martin picked her off. There are 307 people in Parliament you can't do squat about. That last one, it's questionable... and if Canada hates one candidate, is a party stupid enough to endorse them?

Individuals on a “party list” in a proportional system would have to be palatable to Canadians, or Canadians wouldn’t vote for the party. Besides, in a proportional sytem, you’re voting for an ideology… and theoretically, the security of your vote will depend on how well your party follows that ideology. So you’re not going to vote NDP in the Maritimes and get a guy who is pro-life… or vote Conservative and get a guy who thinks gays should marry.

Furthermore, I think it would open the doors to more parties – not wackball parties, but parties that exist based on the fact that there aren’t three major world views in Canada. Maybe I think we should cut taxes but I think two people who love each other should be able to marry. That’s not the Liberals. And it’s not the Conservatives.

Maybe I think we should tax the rich, spend like it’s going out of style and say no to abortion rights. That’s not NDP, and it’s sure as hell not Conservative.

That’s a very real problem with Canada today: like the United States, economic policies of the major parties are tied to a set of social policies… so pick your poison if you’re not a cookie-cutter Canadian. Vote for the element of the platform you hold most dear and hold your nose over the rest of it. You mention David Kilgore – and I think that’s exactly the point. Because in the current system it matters very little what he thinks… our Liberal candidate was anti-gun registry. I doubt those views would really play in the House, even though they may have played locally. You vote Kilgore, you know he agrees with you, but in the House of Commons, he's still just another Liberal.

It's a strengthening of the parties, and it basically seems like taking the problem of party leaders being able to force their party to vote a certain way to an extreme.

I think it’s exactly the opposite. It’s a weakening of the parties, because it does open the door to new parties that represent different views – in the existing system they wouldn’t get a seat. (EDIT 2: A point worth noting on this topic is that the number of seats going to the big 4 parties would instantly drop, with Green seats featured in the House if this had been a proportional vote. "Strategic voting" would also be reduced. It might strengthen some parties, but not the traditionally powerful... and certainly if you look at elections prior to 2004, you'd see the elimination of some majorities that essentially give one party power to rule as it sees fit) The fracture of the right was on a clear line, but it hurt Canadian conservatives and even with a united party the aftershocks are still clearly in play as Canadians wonder what to expect.

Why shouldn’t there be two conservative parties? Well, right now it's only because they can’t build their own majority. A proportional system encourages minorities, it encourages a wider range of views, and it encourages compromise – something there hasn’t been a whole lot of in Ottawa.

Hopefully not too rambly and incoherent.

-SB

 

[maharg]

Devil’s advocate first, my real answer later: Who are your MPs accountable to now? How much right do we have to kick out someone we hate? A lot of Canadians can’t stand Sheila Copps. But she ran and she won and she ran and she won in Hamilton until Martin picked her off. There are 307 people in Parliament you can't do squat about. That last one, it's questionable... and if Canada hates one candidate, is a party stupid enough to endorse them?

Accountable means more than simply being able to remove them. It also means divergance from the party on certain issues. For example, I understand that the Edmonton-Beaumont Liberal candidate (the Other Alberta Liberal) is against gay marriage, and assuming the party whip isn't use, would vote against it. Not that I agree with him, and he's not my candidate, but I feel that it is the right -- and the responsibility -- of a representative to vote with their constituency. In a wholly proportional system, there is no constituency. It is true that they are somewhat more likely to have a party that fits their needs to vote for, but personally I don't think that would happen to the extent you're hoping for. There could still, probably, be no more than 4-5 viable parties, if only because a campaign is expensive, and organizing one for a party even more so.

The big difference, however, is that the concept of Independents would be practically eliminated (even in this last election there was one Independent, and this after they made it so a party need only field a candidate to be recognized as official). And you'd have no way of voting for someone who fits in a party, but votes differently based on the needs of the people in your area. You vote for a party, or you vote for nobody.

Individuals on a “party list” in a proportional system would have to be palatable to Canadians, or Canadians wouldn’t vote for the party. Besides, in a proportional sytem, you’re voting for an ideology… and theoretically, the security of your vote will depend on how well your party follows that ideology. So you’re not going to vote NDP in the Maritimes and get a guy who is pro-life… or vote Conservative and get a guy who thinks gays should marry.

And if an individual is palitable to Quebec, Ontario, and BC, but not Alberta, then what?

That’s a very real problem with Canada today: like the United States, economic policies of the major parties are tied to a set of social policies… so pick your poison if you’re not a cookie-cutter Canadian. Vote for the element of the platform you hold most dear and hold your nose over the rest of it. You mention David Kilgore – and I think that’s exactly the point. Because in the current system it matters very little what he thinks… our Liberal candidate was anti-gun registry. I doubt those views would really play in the House, even though they may have played locally. You vote Kilgore, you know he agrees with you, but in the House of Commons, he's still just another Liberal.

And of course I mentioned him again above. I'm not saying I'm against electoral reform, I just don't see this as an answer. David Kilgore as a member of a proportional Liberal party would have even less say, because there would be no one to vote for him on the basis of his *slightly* different views. A party just for "Libs who don't like fags?" I doubt it somehow. I'd also like to point out that what you see as "weakening parties" looks more to me like "weakening existing parties." The parties that result, however, would be stronger (not in voting power, but internally) and more unified in their voting policies, imo.

However, the kind of electoral reform *I* would like to see is a complete moving away from parties. I can see no better way of weakening them than eliminating them altogether, and I absolutely do not want to end up voting for an ideology. I want to vote for a representative. Someone I can send letters to and actually expect them to get read. Someone who will vote based on the local needs of his area. I agree the current system is not exactly strongly suited to this, but it is at the very least moreso.

On the other hand, I have done more research on this since posting (thankya wikipedia), and the system they use in Oz is fairly interesting. Runoff voting. Supposedly eliminates vote waste and stratedic without reducing accountability (you still vote for your rep). However, I think the complexity is a little daunting, and most people barely seem to understand our own current system, I fear for the day math gets involved.

I would also not be against a proportional locality system (I just invented it, so far as I know), where you have multiple reps with voting power based on the popular vote in their riding. This would allow minority opinions to contribute to the actual course of government but not remove accountability. The maintenance of such a system would be unfortunately complex though.

 

[Azih]

I like the MMP system myself

http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esf03.htm

You retain the ability to vote for riding representatives while removing the waste of votes.

 

[SickBoy]

For example, I understand that the Edmonton-Beaumont Liberal candidate (the Other Alberta Liberal) is against gay marriage, and assuming the party whip isn't use, would vote against it. Not that I agree with him, and he's not my candidate, but I feel that it is the right -- and the responsibility -- of a representative to vote with their constituency.

I agree it's a rep's responsibility, but not knowing that candidate or his riding -- his view may or may not represent the concerns of his constituents. I've seen plenty of situations in which MPs have done things their constituents haven't wanted them to and they haven't been punished for them. Our local Conservative candidate, for example, was gung ho on Iraq, and even made the point of acknowledging the fact that an awful lot of his constituents were opposed, but he was still speaking in favour.

You're exactly right, IMO, that the problem is the parties. Current MPs vote party line. They'll continue voting party line, and people will still elect them based on who their leader is and which party they want to see leading Canada.

It is true that they are somewhat more likely to have a party that fits their needs to vote for, but personally I don't think that would happen to the extent you're hoping for. There could still, probably, be no more than 4-5 viable parties, if only because a campaign is expensive, and organizing one for a party even more so.

Well, in New Zealand's 120-member mixed proportional Parliament, there are 7 parties plus one independent sitting. Here in Canada we've got 4 now (plus one independent -- soon to be Conservative?), and one of those is a situation unique to us: the Bloc Quebecois.

The big difference, however, is that the concept of Independents would be practically eliminated (even in this last election there was one Independent, and this after they made it so a party need only field a candidate to be recognized as official). And you'd have no way of voting for someone who fits in a party, but votes differently based on the needs of the people in your area. You vote for a party, or you vote for nobody.

Again, I think this is addressed in a mixed-member system to a degree.

And if an individual is palitable to Quebec, Ontario, and BC, but not Alberta, then what?

If we did enter into a proportional system in Canada, what I would like to see is that whatever the proportional element entailed, it would regionalize the proportional element. For example, votes here in B.C. would be calculated proportionally, but only applied to the 36 seats here (or 18 in a mixed-member system, or whatever). I think that would address some of the concerns about regional impact.

I'd also like to point out that what you see as "weakening parties" looks more to me like "weakening existing parties." The parties that result, however, would be stronger (not in voting power, but internally) and more unified in their voting policies, imo.

IMO, even if that is the case, that's the lesser of the two evils.

I don't know if pro-rep is the perfect answer, but I do think it's better than the broken-down system we have now. I hope there is some serious study on electoral reform by this current government. Turnout Monday was 60.5 per cent -- probably lower, because Elections Canada numbers don't include people who registered on election day in their registered elector numbers. Either way, it was the lowest ever. Something has to be done to re-engage voters.

However, the kind of electoral reform *I* would like to see is a complete moving away from parties. I can see no better way of weakening them than eliminating them altogether, and I absolutely do not want to end up voting for an ideology. I want to vote for a representative. Someone I can send letters to and actually expect them to get read. Someone who will vote based on the local needs of his area. I agree the current system is not exactly strongly suited to this, but it is at the very least moreso.

As I mentioned above, I agree with you about parties, but I don't think it's feasible to say "down with the parties." Maybe there's a way it could be done, but I'm skeptical. And I'm certain there would be at least some loose brokerage of power -- even if not overtly organized -- from people with particular agendas.

I would also not be against a proportional locality system (I just invented it, so far as I know), where you have multiple reps with voting power based on the popular vote in their riding. This would allow minority opinions to contribute to the actual course of government but not remove accountability. The maintenance of such a system would be unfortunately complex though.

This is one of the things I think wouldn't hurt our democracy -- increasing the number of representatives in one way or another. But it's an idea that just wouldn't fly with Canadians. Too many voters would see the dollar signs it would entail spending.

-SB

 

[Jason]

Funny stuff.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/stephenharper/

 

[Azih]

MMP by province might be an interesting route.

 

[maharg]

This is one of the things I think wouldn't hurt our democracy -- increasing the number of representatives in one way or another. But it's an idea that just wouldn't fly with Canadians. Too many voters would see the dollar signs it would entail spending.

-SB

Well, I don't know if it would be too terrible of a burden these days, with technology at our disposal. I also feel that an improvement would come from reducing the emphasis on career politics. We should have very few reps for whom being a politician is a full time job imo. It just leads to corruption.

And again, with technology available that is a more viable now than it ever has been, but I hold no hope of it happening.

The turnout on this election is extremely disapointing to me. Early appearances made it seem like this would be, if anything, a landmark election for voter turnout, just from the amount of energy it seemed to instill in people, the amount of discussion it generated, and the number of people who were insisting that people should, nay MUST vote.

Ah well.