Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

double secret bans are so stupid

"i think we should not raise taxes"

"yeah, well, i think we should BAN raising taxes"

"yeah, well, i think we should BAN changing the law that bans raising taxes"

"yeah, well, i think we should scrap the entire constitution and replace it with a one liner that says: God rules, and he hates taxes"

I was wondering, has there been a successful NDP run province in recent memory? Or are the provincial NDP entirely different than federal... Enough that they could be called a different political party?
Is there any commonality between federal and provincial NDP?

what would you say is the list of successfully run provinces, full-stop, in recent memory?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

equating voting for C-51 with Pierre Trudeau's of the use of the War Measures act is disingenuous and pandering

You keep using these words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

You know who was disingenuous and pandering during pretty much the whole debate? Justin Trudeau.

 

[gutter_trash]

Here's more info about that law.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-tax-lock-1.3243973

Please don't tell me he's going to use this law as a wedge issue if he gets reelected with a minority.

so we are USA now

 

[pr0cs]

what would you say is the list of successfully run provinces, full-stop, in recent memory?

Hmm, maybe elected for more than one term. I suppose 'successful' is too hard to quantify.
I'll do some googling

 

[Boogie]

equating voting for C-51 with Pierre Trudeau's of the use of the War Measures act is disingenuous and pandering

Indeed.

The WMA is far more infringing on liberty than C-51.

 

[gutter_trash]

Indeed.

The WMA is far more infringing on liberty than C-51.

gotta break some eggs to make an omelet

 

[Stet]

Indeed.

The WMA is far more infringing on liberty than C-51.

To be fair, the WMA was a temporary solution to a tangible problem, while C-51 is an indefinite solution to an invented problem.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

gotta break some eggs to make an omelet

So arresting people based on their political opinion is alright as long as it's for the "greater good" of keeping the status quo? I don't think I want to live in your "utopia"...

 

[Boogie]

To be fair, the WMA was a temporary solution to a tangible problem, while C-51 is an indefinite solution to an invented problem.

A fair point.

Just wanted to needle g_t's Trudeau worship.

 

[gutter_trash]

So arresting people based on their political opinion is alright as long as it's for the "greater good" of keeping the status quo? I don't think I want to live in your "utopia"...

a democratically elected Provincial minister and representative was kidnapped then later killed by a terrorist organization.

Order was the only option

 

[Deleted member 126221]

a democratically elected Provincial minister and representative was kidnapped then later killed by a terrorist organization.

Order was the only option

Okay, let's put this in a modern setting, based on the actual niqab panic.

Let's say a muslim extremist group kidnaps a conservative minister in Ottawa and ask the government to revoke the niqab ban immediately. In response, the government sends the army to occupy Ottawa and throw in jail hundreds of muslims without due process, because they are "suspected" of being linked to the incident because of their religious beliefs.

Do you still think "you gotta break eggs to make an omelet"?

 

[Silexx]

Oh God, are we actually going to have this discussion? *barf*

 

[diaspora]

Indeed.

The WMA is far more infringing on liberty than C-51.

Didn't it take people getting murdered to get the WMA used temporarily?

 

[sikkinixx]

You guys and the WMA bickering... get over it. Why not go back even further to argue about the necessity of things? How 'bout that draft the Liberals pulled back in WWII? "not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary" or the flag debate? Why not get annoyed about the flag and how we're disrespecting or sticking to the Queen by changing it, depending on your view?

This election is so silly, focusing on such useless shit. One quasi-decent budget report, that isn't even decent once you get past the headline of it, and everyone jumps away from that (an important issue) and bickers about Canadian unity or the senate or a handful of women covering their faces at some stupid symbolic event. The entire thing, and everyone involved, makes me so annoyed and angry at this dumb fucking country we live in.

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

Wow that "tax lock" law sounds so desperate.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Quebec pundits seem to think the CPC will pick up more seats in Quebec due to the Niqab issue.

Really dumb because the law is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway, and Quebeckers tend to be against every other thing Harper is in favour of. People have to be pretty dumb and shallow to be changing their vote on an issue like this.

 

[gutter_trash]

Quebec pundits seem to think the CPC will pick up more seats in Quebec due to the Niqab issue.

Really dumb because the law is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway, and Quebeckers tend to be against every other thing Harper is in favour of. People have to be pretty dumb and shallow to be changing their vote on an issue like this.

don't under estimate the Right leaning regions that still have roots from the old Union Nationale and Crédit Social of yesteryear.

 

[maharg]

- He wins election with plurality, but not majority
- Other parties say they will bring his government down, and form coalition/accord to govern
- Harper goes to Governor General and asks for Parliament to be prorogued until the spring (legally he only gives up his job when he is defeated in the House).

Just a minor nitpick to this scenario: proroguing the house only happens after it's been called. If Harper wanted to avoid the house sitting while he did PR after the election he doesn't need the GG to go along with it, it's his prerogative to not call the house until he's ready or the statutory limit on how long the house can go without sitting is past (I believe 1 year).

And arguably, until he calls the house and obtains their confidence the GG is not particularly obligated to just do whatever he says (ie. there's precedent for refusing to drop a new writ).

The reason he had to prorogue in 2008 is because he successfully passed the throne speech and it was his budget, which simultaneously ended the per-vote subsidy and failed to have any stimulus spending for the market meltdown that was going on, that the opposition made known their intentions to bring down the government on. When the house finally did come back, the new budget at least had stimulus spending, which is a big part of what took the air out of the opposition's complaints (along with the legitimacy argument).

 

[Vamphuntr]

Quebec pundits seem to think the CPC will pick up more seats in Quebec due to the Niqab issue.

Really dumb because the law is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway, and Quebeckers tend to be against every other thing Harper is in favour of. People have to be pretty dumb and shallow to be changing their vote on an issue like this.

Chantal Hébert seems to think he will use the notwithstanding clause to pass his law. As such it will need to be voted again every 5 years. That would be a dangerous precedent as he could invoke the use of the notwithstanding clause every time he sees fit.

I'm pretty much convinced Harper will win again because of that garbage

 

[matthewwhatever]

some reporters need to pressure the NDP and Liberals to insure that a coalition is on the table

Why should reporters do that? Shouldn't they also be pressuring the Conservatives to prove that they have a plan for governing in a minority situation, particularly now that the other two parties have definitively stated they wouldn't support them? I feel like reporters pressuring parties to do anything, one way or another, would be a gross abuse of their positions.

Here's more info about that law.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-tax-lock-1.3243973

Please don't tell me he's going to use this law as a wedge issue if he gets reelected with a minority.

Apparently, the "tax lock" is a go-to move for their new advisor.

Just a minor nitpick to this scenario: proroguing the house only happens after it's been called. If Harper wanted to avoid the house sitting while he did PR after the election he doesn't need the GG to go along with it, it's his prerogative to not call the house until he's ready or the statutory limit on how long the house can go without sitting is past (I believe 1 year).

And arguably, until he calls the house and obtains their confidence the GG is not particularly obligated to just do whatever he says (ie. there's precedent for refusing to drop a new writ).

The reason he had to prorogue in 2008 is because he successfully passed the throne speech and it was his budget, which simultaneously ended the per-vote subsidy and failed to have any stimulus spending for the market meltdown that was going on, that the opposition made known their intentions to bring down the government on. When the house finally did come back, the new budget at least had stimulus spending, which is a big part of what took the air out of the opposition's complaints (along with the legitimacy argument).

The proroguing nitpick aside, I don't think Great Potato's scenario is that implausible. No matter what vague noises Harper made in his Mansbridge interview, I think his actual history should play a bigger role in people's expectations than anything else. 2008 showed that he's willing to upend or ignore convention if it helps him stay in power, and there's been little in the ensuing 7 years to suggest that he's changed on that front. I've heard some speculation that, if he ends up with the most seats in a minority situation, the GG might ask him to prove he has the House's confidence before Christmas, but I feel like 2008 made that requirement a little more tenuous (though you're right that at least in that case, he'd proven he had confidence, whereas in GP's scenario he wouldn't have done that).

That's why I think he'd just skip the prorogation part entirely -- bring the House back at the date they promised when it dissolved back in June, have a vote-less Throne Speech, and then don't schedule any confidence votes until the budget, at which point they'd have received their rebate for this election and be ready to fight a new one. The only hiccup would come if one of the other parties tried to schedule a confidence vote during an opposition day, but I feel like even then, he could say that Martin established the unfortunate precedent that opposition-initiated confidence votes aren't binding. It might come off as a little desperate, but if they can hold out just long enough to fight an election in which they're the only party that has any money, he might see that as a safe risk.

 

[Parch]

You know who was disingenuous and pandering during pretty much the whole debate? Justin Trudeau.

They should replay the debates over and over again. More Canadians needed to see this.

 

[Sakura]

There is a very real pathway for Harper to try and game our system to remain in power, even if the other parties have more seats:

- He wins election with plurality, but not majority
- Other parties say they will bring his government down, and form coalition/accord to govern
- Harper goes to Governor General and asks for Parliament to be prorogued until the spring (legally he only gives up his job when he is defeated in the House).
- Does Throne Speech, but refuses to allow Parliament to vote on it (which would break tradition, but is allowed)
- Doesn't allow confidence votes until budget in Apr/May
- Uses this entire time period with a massive PR blitz to attack the Liberal-NDP "coalition of losers" idea as illegitimate and illegal (even though it's legal and common in other democracies, and has even happened in Canadian provincial politics)
- If public polls show that people are then against the idea of a coalition, he will ask the GG for a new election instead of allowing them to take power
- Conservatives still have large warchest to spend, while Liberals and NDP have no money left after this election
- Conservatives win majority

The reason it is likely is because:

- In 2008 the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition to do just this and bring him down, but he got the GG to prorogue Parliament and he did the PR blitz. When Parliament returned months later, the parties backed down because of the public backlash
- He is already using phrases like "the people elect a government, Parliament doesn't." This is factual incorrect as Parliament actually does elect the government, not the people. The people simply elected the Parliament.

If he does though, it will be a huge abuse of power, and hopefully the GG would not go along with it. Constitutional scholars chided the last GG for allowing his move in 2008.

I wouldn't say that scenario is likely at all.
The GG can refuse to prorogue, and even if he does allow it, he can set the time.
And when Harper came back after prorogation, he came back with a budget that was revised to meet some of the oppositions demands, which killed some of their momentum more than 'public backlash' in my opinion.
Also, it should be noted, that the GG can refuse to allow the opposition to form a coalition government even if Harper does not prorogue.

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

Dion also stepped down during that time.

 

[mo60]

Quebec pundits seem to think the CPC will pick up more seats in Quebec due to the Niqab issue.

Really dumb because the law is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway, and Quebeckers tend to be against every other thing Harper is in favour of. People have to be pretty dumb and shallow to be changing their vote on an issue like this.

At this point it only looks like they will only pick up a few extra seats, but they will still be under 10 seats according to cbc's poll tracker.

 

[Silexx]

EIP Show
‏@EIPShow

David Suzuki tells @EvanLSolomon that @JustinTrudeau told Suzuki "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap" #climatechange #elxn42

Justin has just secured my vote.

At this point it only looks like they will only pick up a few extra seats, but they will still be under 10 seats according to cbc's poll tracker.

Yeah, this is what Nanos is saying too:

@NikNanos prediction: No CPC surge in QC. The Conservatives best case scenario is to hold what they have and pick up a few extra seats.

 

[Prax]

Justin has just secured my vote.


Yeah, this is what Nanos is saying too:

What is the context for what Trudeau said? lol

I am so nervous about having yet another conservative government again.. what lame ducks cutting everything good and important to me

 

[SickBoy]

I think one of the substantial differences when it comes to the coming election is that if it's a minority situation, with the Conservatives having the most seats, the Liberals and NDP won't need to lean on the Bloc to govern.

Maybe Harper would make the case - again - that a Liberal-NDP coalition isn't what Canadians voted for (but then again, neither would they have chosen a limp Tory minority).

But the lesson that should have been learned in 2008/9 is that it likely wouldn't be in the opposition parties' interest to prop up a Conservative minority. First, Harper came away with a majority in 2011 after the opposition flirtation (and cold feet) over a coalition... and second, I think it would damage the NDP or Liberals for those parties to support a Harper government. It's not what their voters want...

Likewise, as the 2008 coalition talk was seen as opportunism and condemned by many, I think exceptional moves to keep a grasp on power would ultimately be a huge Tory misstep and hurt them come 2019. Assuming the other parties didn't blink, the Liberals and NDP would either have to screw up Canada in three years for the Conservatives to have much of a shot.

 

[Silexx]

What is the context for what Trudeau said? lol

I am so nervous about having yet another conservative government again.. what lame ducks cutting everything good and important to me

May have been about climate change. There's an interview with Suzuki where he suppose to explain what happened coming out soon.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Here's an interesting little side story to the election didn't seem to get a lot of interest from the media. This article about the possible negative knock on effects of an NDP policy came out on September 24th:

NDP’s stock option plan would ‘kill’ Canadian startup ecosystem, tech leaders say

Some of Canada’s leading technology entrepreneurs are warning an NDP election pledge to change the tax treatment for stock options will have a disastrous effect on Canada’s burgeoning startup scene, one of the brightest sectors of a sluggish Canadian economy.

“I think that option taxation will kill the Canadian startup ecosystem,” said Ryan Holmes, founder and chief executive officer of Vancouver-based Hootsuite Media Inc., a seven-year-old social media management firm that has rapidly grown to an estimated $100-million-plus in revenues and is expected to go public within the next year.

“It is shortsighted and will be very negatively impactful.”

Tobi Lutke, CEO of Shopify Inc., an Ottawa retail merchant software firm whose initial public offering in May was one of the most successful by a Canadian tech firm in years, said if stock option gains become fully taxable, “then there will be a lot less technology startups.”

Under the NDP plan, gains from exercising stock options would be fully taxed. Currently, only 50 per cent of the gains from stock options are subject to tax, which is the same favourable capital gains tax rate that investors pay when they sell shares.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair calls the tax treatment for options a “loophole” that benefits CEOs and “the wealthiest Canadians.” His party estimates the government would save $500-million a year for the next four years by taxing the full gain on options. The Liberal and Conservative parties have not proposed changes to taxation of stock options.

But leaders of Canada’s startup scene say options are not just for big company CEOs – they are also vital for young companies that need to attract employees and are challenged by a lack of money and a much greater risk of failure than an established firm. Employees accept lower pay and greater risk in the hopes that the stock options they receive could translate into valuable equity down the line.

“It’s a super fundamental part of the startup ecosystem, and the reason startups work,” said Mr. Lutke, whose company is hiring hundreds of people this year.

An NDP tax change, he said, “moves the needle up the risk-reward scale on the side of risk,” which means the same people will not join startups any more. “The only reason Shopify exists is because we gave people equity before salary for the first couple of years.”

....

Mr. Lutke is completely right here. This policy would kill tech startups in Canada and it would be an insanely bad idea. If the NDP were elected to government I would have immediately written Mulcair to implore him to kill the policy. As it happens, Mr. Holmes and Lutke did write to Mr. Mulcair and they quickly got a response:

The policy is not aimed at early stage startups and would be designed to not affect them.

Which resulted in this tweet from Lutke.

 

[Walpurgis]

Here's a rough summary of the important part you're missing.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

In short, if you were suspected of being in the FLQ because of your independentist ideas, they could search your house and throw you in jail without any process. 3000 person had their house searched by the army and 497 were arrested that way, with only 62 being charged of something. So no, some people in Quebec didn't like it.

(I don't think I need to specify this, but you never know: being an independentist does. not. make. you. a. terrorist.)

Thanks. I just read the article and it says that 89% of English-speaking Canadians supported the introduction of the War Measures Act, and 86% of French-speaking Canada supported its introduction. I guess people were afraid of the FLQ and wanted the crisis to end. Why has it grown unpopular over time? Does that have to do with referendums that followed and the tensions that might have caused with the wonky wording and other trickery?

In my opinion, it was a necessary thing because of what was happening at the time (and since it was only temporary). I don't know how else they could have handled it. That being said, I'm strictly against thought policing of all kind. C-51 especially scares me, particularly because there's no clear purpose for it. Quebec should vote NDP. It's the only way.

 

[Silexx]

Here's the interview with Suzuki:

https://twitter.com/EIPShow/status/647566595758419968

 

[Annubis]

Here's the interview with Suzuki:

https://twitter.com/EIPShow/status/647566595758419968

Am I understanding right that Trudeau told off David Suzuki and people are cheering him for that?

 

[gutter_trash]

oh Solomon

 

[Silexx]

Am I understanding right that Trudeau told off David Suzuki and people are cheering him for that?

Yes. Thing is, Suzuki is quite the sanctimonious preacher these days. While his fight against climate change is admirable, he's been known to distort facts in order to fit his own agenda. He's very hard to take seriously these days. Plus he's a well-know anti-GMO crusader.

Here's some context on where the Suzuki criticism is coming from: http://dangardner.ca/david-suzukis-good-old-days/

 

[Walpurgis]

Hahaha! Trudeau called Suzuki for an endorsement and Suzuki gave him an earful of green.

Trudeau: "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap!" then Suzuki called that twerp a twerp.

On a separate occasion, Suzuki asked Trudeau to form a truce with the NDP in split vote ridings and agree on a single candidate.

Trudeau: "I know what I'm doing. Trust me, there's no deal."

Spoiler

In case you're wondering, he hasn't spoken to Mulcair and Harper doesn't answer his phone calls.

Very interesting interview. Suzuki talks about the need for PR (he's never voted for a party that has gotten into power before) and the damage that Harper has done to democracy in this country. He also talks about how little climate change is being talked about, even though it is the greatest issue facing the human race, and Harper's old-stock Canadians comment.

 

[lupinko]

As much as I respect and like David Suzuki, lately he's been saying lots of things like how Canada shouldn't do anymore immigration as it's already full and that by doing so poaches other (notably developing) countries' best and brightest away.

 

[Silexx]

As much as I respect and like David Suzuki, lately he's been saying lots of things like how Canada shouldn't do anymore immigration as it's already full and that by doing so poaches other (notably developing) countries' best and brightest away.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that whopper. Guy has been peddling false doom and gloom for a while now.

 

[SRG01]

Hahaha! Trudeau called Suzuki for an endorsement and Suzuki gave him an earful of green.

Trudeau: "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap!" then Suzuki called that twerp a twerp.

On a separate occasion, Suzuki asked Trudeau to form a truce with the NDP in split vote ridings and agree on a single candidate.

Trudeau: "I know what I'm doing. Trust me, there's no deal."

Spoiler

In case you're wondering, he hasn't spoken to Mulcair and Harper doesn't answer his phone calls.

Very interesting interview. Suzuki talks about the need for PR (he's never voted for a party that has gotten into power before) and the damage that Harper has done to democracy in this country. He also talks about how little climate change is being talked about, even though it is the greatest issue facing the human race, and Harper's old-stock Canadians comment.

To be completely fair though, co-operation in split vote ridings is extremely undemocratic. Depriving citizens a chance to vote for a party of their choice is not the best solution out there.

There was something very similar to that in Alberta's recent provincial election, where Laurie Blakeman ran for three parties simultaneously. There's the ideal, of course, that an MLA is elected and not the party. But, by having the endorsement from all three parties simultaneously, it raises questions of caucusing and where her votes would go if the parties she backs have opposing policies. And that's without considering the realpolitik of voting for the party and not the person in modern Canadian politics.

As much as I respect and like David Suzuki, lately he's been saying lots of things like how Canada shouldn't do anymore immigration as it's already full and that by doing so poaches other (notably developing) countries' best and brightest away.

He also pushes a lot of unscientific ideas, such as buying organic and buying local -- the latter of which has a weird (and somewhat self-contradictory) explanation on his website.

 

[Slavik81]

Didn't it take people getting murdered to get the WMA used temporarily?

There are well over 500 murders a year in Canada. If all it took was murder, we could have the entire country under martial law in perpetuity.

 

[lupinko]

There are well over 500 murders a year in Canada. If all it took was murder, we could have the entire country under martial law in perpetuity.

They were terrorist attacks though akin to homegrown terrorists like McVeigh, but of course that was on a grander scale with a large bombing.

Also as noted the measures had over 80% in favor to enacting the act from both the English and French speaking sides of Canada.

 

[maharg]

I don't think popularity is ever a good justification for martial law, personally. I think the WMA was a rather extreme response, and a lot of innocent people were rounded up in it.

The fact that it was popular just disturbs me.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Thanks. I just read the article and it says that 89% of English-speaking Canadians supported the introduction of the War Measures Act, and 86% of French-speaking Canada supported its introduction. I guess people were afraid of the FLQ and wanted the crisis to end. Why has it grown unpopular over time? Does that have to do with referendums that followed and the tensions that might have caused with the wonky wording and other trickery?

In my opinion, it was a necessary thing because of what was happening at the time (and since it was only temporary). I don't know how else they could have handled it. That being said, I'm strictly against thought policing of all kind. C-51 especially scares me, particularly because there's no clear purpose for it. Quebec should vote NDP. It's the only way.

Yeah, people were in favor of something being done because there was a lot of instability, but they didn't like at all the way it was handled: arresting people (most of the time completely innocent) without proof and without due process, based on their political beliefs. It was a separatist witch hunt and felt like a power trip from a government wanting to shut down dissident voices. Sure, Trudeau needed to do something about the situation in Quebec, but the response was totally disproportionate and that's why it's still remembered negatively.

By the way, I'm sincerely glad you took the time to read a bit on this, even if we don't agree.

 

[Stet]

Am I understanding right that Trudeau told off David Suzuki and people are cheering him for that?

Suzuki has become a lunatic.

 

[Evo Shandor]

Suzuki has become a lunatic.

This. I have met him on a few occasions through a friend that works for him and local fundraisers he attends.

The dude is losing it. He is incredibly unpleasant in person.

 

[Hours Left]

Just say the NDP's "Let Harper Go" parody commercial. Amazing.

I yearn for the day when we don't have to suffer through the Conservative party starting their attack ads literally years in advance.

 

[matthewwhatever]

As much as I respect and like David Suzuki, lately he's been saying lots of things like how Canada shouldn't do anymore immigration as it's already full and that by doing so poaches other (notably developing) countries' best and brightest away.

Yeah, he's kind of a hypocrite on a couple of important issues. I didn't know about him being anti-immigration, but the fact he's got five kids and he's not vegetarian suggests he's not as big on reducing his ecological footprint as he encourages everyone else to be.

Newest Nanos:

So whatever massive movement Ekos is seeing, it's not showing up here. The Conservatives are up a little in Quebec but still well behind. They've jumped ahead of the NDP in BC, but there's nothing here to suggest the CPC is benefiting from the sort of total NDP collapse Ekos found.

One major thing to watch for this coming week: there's a good chance the TPP gets signed. Depending on what's in it, that could potentially kill Conservative support entirely in Quebec (where, as I understand it, the dairy industry is a major point of pride) and southern Ontario (where the auto industry still holds sway in some very close ridings). The Quebec ridings it directly impacts probably weren't going Conservative anyway, but the 905/519 is still a big part of their re-election strategy.

 

[gutter_trash]

I think Suzuki's real stance on immigration is mostly due to that he is against the increase of world human population. Suzuki values to environment so much that he puts it above human concerns.

The increasing human population is stressing the Planet which is a fact.

But Western counties are not experiencing a boom of population due the rate of birth.

Canada's birth rate levels remain relatively low.

There is a demand in labour for labourers, and some Canadians do not want to do those shitty jobs.

Immigration is an important part of the cycle of a growing country, especially in our case where we don't make babies.

@ matthewwhatever

The flash in the pan spike on the Niqab is a blip that flares up hot passions but quickly dies out when people start thinking about other issues like pensions, economy, infrastructure and the blabla.

The biggest flaw of the Radio-Canada debate was that those journos picked the most odd questions that have the least impact on most Canadian's real preocupations.
And lots of those picked questions were more about a mirror of Provincial side politics asked upon Federal canadiates.

In the end, people vote for the issues that matter most to them and I don't think that the Niqab is going to sublpant people's views on fiscal issues, taxes, pensions, social services or whatever affects them in their job market

 

[Annubis]

Looking at those polling methods, isn't it normal that Conservators always seem bloated?
I mean, it polls through random telephone calls done on landlines (as there's no official cellphone registry accessible).
I imagine that people who have landlines are much more likely to be conservators than the 18-35 who possess only a cellphone.

 

[SRG01]

Looking at those polling methods, isn't it normal that Conservators always seem bloated?
I mean, it polls through random telephone calls done on landlines (as there's no official cellphone registry accessible).
I imagine that people who have landlines are much more likely to be conservators than the 18-35 who possess only a cellphone.

If anything, polls -- if voter intention isn't factored in -- usually underestimate the Conservative vote as their voting block of older citizens and seniors tend to vote more often.

 

[gutter_trash]

Jean Lapierre calls that "la prime à la urne"

meaning a party that has an underetamted voting block that is more quiet and reserved about their voter intentions, end up voting quietly for that party and giving them a superior result than what polls predicted