Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

L'option souverainiste bat de l'aile en ce moment, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire, mais comme on dit, "c'est pas fini tant que c'est pas fini".

Tu me niaises, lol.

Le plus le temps avance, le plus que ta cause est perdue.

Lisée a perdu des plumes chez l’électorat séparatiste qui sont fâchés contre lui parce qu'il refuse de tenir un référendum dans son premier mandat.

La CAQa gruge le PQ à sa droite avec sa crise identitaire,
et Québec Solitaire mange le PQ à sa gauche.

C'est fini , man.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Yes it does because it showcases how rotten FPTP and other winner take all systems are in representing voters.

Let's continue:

You're fine with government policies and campaigns privileging swing ridings rather than the country as a whole?

Hey, this is fun. We're apparently on the hook for what you apparently believe are the "failings" of FPTP, so that means you're cool with, say, not having a functioning government for seven months, and just handing power over to the Governor-General. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Or better yet, it means you're fond of four years of no government. Doesn't seem like the most effective way to run a country, but you'd be represented or something!

But it's all cool, because PR has never led to a crazy Trump-like figure being elected! I mean, sure, sometimes it has, but what's a few bunga-bunga parties in the name of you, personally, feeling like your voice is heard? At least there were no neo-fascists or scary right-wingers elected anywhere, except for one or two teensy exceptions. But those don't count, because they aren't *true* PR for reasons I'm sure you'll explain. We'll have the *best* PR system in Canada. It's going to be huge! All will love!

 

[Azih]

Voting guarantees a say in who represents you, voting isn't a guarantee of the representation you want.

Being represented by someone I don't support isn't representation by any stretch of the imagination.

In most democracies, using PR, far more voters are guaranteed representation.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Tu me niaises, lol.

Le plus le temps avance, le plus que ta cause est perdue.

Lisée a perdu des plumes chez l’électorat séparatiste qui sont fâchés contre lui parce qu'il refuse de tenir un référendum dans son premier mandat.

La CAQa gruge le PQ à sa droite avec sa crise identitaire,
et Québec Solitaire mange le PQ à sa gauche.

C'est fini , man.

Amir Kadir, Françoise David et Manon Massé vont nous mener à la Terre Promise!

Spoiler

I wish.

Je dirai pas le contraire, la politique québécoise est de la crisse de marde ces derniers temps.

 

[gutter_trash]

Amir Kadir, Françoise David et Manon Massé vont nous mener à la Terre Promise!

Spoiler

I wish.

Je dirai pas le contraire, la politique québécoise est de la crisse de marde ces derniers temps.

on est daccord là dessus, c'est vraiment de la marde.

Couillard est décevant à mon avis, manque d'imagination, manque d'innovation, manque d'enthousiasme.

J'ose même dire que Charest était plus intelligent et plus doué que Couillard

Je trouve que le Provincial fait du sur place et continue toujours dans la magouille perpétuelle

 

[Deleted member 126221]

on est daccord là dessus, c'est vraiment de la marde.

Couillard est décevant à mon avis, manque d'imagination, manque d'innovation, manque d'enthousiasme.

J'ose même dire que Charest était plus intelligent et plus doué que Couillard

Je trouve que le Provincial fait du sur place et continue toujours dans la magouille perpétuelle

Yup, entièrement d'accord. Sauf que j'utiliserais des mots pas mal plus insultants et violents pour décrire ce que je pense de Couillard.

 

[Dr.Acula]

what Angus Reid survey? I want to play

It's a thing you sign up for, and they send you surveys kinda randomly. If you PM me your email, I'll send you an invite.

 

[gutter_trash]

Yup, entièrement d'accord. Sauf que j'utiliserais des mots pas mal plus insultants et violents pour décrire ce que je pense de Couillard.

Pierre Moreau ferait un meilleur chef au lieu de Couillard,

le PQ de leur bord aurait du choisir Cloutier à place de Lisée

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Hey, this is fun. We're apparently on the hook for what you apparently believe are the "failings" of FPTP, so that means you're cool with, say, not having a functioning government for seven months, and just handing power over to the Governor-General. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Or better yet, it means you're fond of four years of no government. Doesn't seem like the most effective way to run a country, but you'd be represented or something!

But it's all cool, because PR has never led to a crazy Trump-like figure being elected! I mean, sure, sometimes it has, but what's a few bunga-bunga parties in the name of you, personally, feeling like your voice is heard? At least there were no neo-fascists or scary right-wingers elected anywhere, except for one or two teensy exceptions. But those don't count, because they aren't *true* PR for reasons I'm sure you'll explain. We'll have the *best* PR system in Canada. It's going to be huge! All will love!

I get what you're trying to say, but this isn't a good argument. Proportionality guarantees that everyone's voice is heard, which is kinda the whole point. If I support the Green party, my vote better damn well matter, and the composition of the government better reflect that. If there's enough votes to elect fucked up fascist MPs, then so be it, that's the whole point of democracy. Cases where countries have a dysfunctional government are not the norm.

Even the probability of a riding going:

A - 35% of the vote and winner
B - 30%
C - 30%
D - 5%

Should demonstrate that this is a completely out of date and unrepresentative system. When 65% vote against you, and you still win that riding, that's not exactly representing the will of the people.

 

[Simon Belmont]

the problem is fptp doesn't give you a proper say in who represents you.

You get a chance to vote for the MP that represents your riding. That is proper.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Pierre Moreau ferait un meilleur chef au lieu de Couillard,

le PQ de leur bord aurait du choisir Cloutier à place de Lisée

Un bout de bois ferait un meilleur chef que Couillard.

D'accord pour Cloutier. Je commence à en avoir plein le cul des wedges identitaires, au PQ comme ailleurs...

 

[Simon Belmont]

I get what you're trying to say, but this isn't a good argument. Proportionality guarantees that everyone's voice is heard, which is kinda the whole point. If I support the Green party, my vote better damn well matter, and the composition of the government better reflect that. If there's enough votes to elect fucked up fascist MPs, then so be it, that's the whole point of democracy. Cases where countries have a dysfunctional government are not the norm.

If only 4% of the people in the country support the Greens, they don't deserve representation. If you can't convince a group of people in your riding to elect you, you don't deserve the office of MP.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Je dirai pas le contraire, la politique québécoise est de la crisse de marde ces derniers temps.

on est daccord là dessus, c'est vraiment de la marde.

Thirded.

Je trouve ça poche que y'ait aucune option fédéraliste de gauche au provincial (non, Union Citoyenne ne compte pas, trop fringe). Il est crissement temps que le NPD provincial s'installe au Québec...

 

[PumpkinSpice]

I get what you're trying to say, but this isn't a good argument. Proportionality guarantees that everyone's voice is heard, which is kinda the whole point. If I support the Green party, my vote better damn well matter, and the composition of the government better reflect that. If there's enough votes to elect fucked up fascist MPs, then so be it, that's the whole point of democracy. Cases where countries have a dysfunctional government are not the norm.

Yeahhhhh I'm not on board with that. I want more proportionality, but I really don't want a system where the 3% of voters in favor of the "Pro-Hitler Coalition" or "Muslims and Jews Are Satan Party of Canada" get any representation in Parliament.

If that means I have to not vote for the Greens and instead support a mainstream party, so be it.

 

[Pedrito]

Quebec unemployment is at its lowest in 40 years. Based Couillard :worship:

 

[Buba Big Guns]

If only 4% of the people in the country support the Greens, they don't deserve representation. If you can't convince a group of people in your riding to elect you, you don't deserve the office of MP.

If the Greens win 4% of the vote, they should get 4% of the seats full stop. Sure, there can be a cut off point, but how many left leaning people voted for the Libs last election instead of their actual preferred party just to get rid of the CPC? You wont ever need to worry about strategic voting again under a PR system.

Yeahhhhh I'm not on board with that. I want more proportionality, but I really don't want a system where the 3% of voters in favor of the "Pro-Hitler Coalition" or "Muslims and Jews Are Satan Party of Canada" get any representation in Parliament.

If that means I have to not vote for the Greens and instead support a mainstream party, so be it.

Then a PR system with a cuttoff point for representation. I think a lot of countries already do that.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

My biggest fear from Justin's recent decision on Kinder Morgan is that people who voted Liberal will now try to siphon off into NDP. There's nothing wrong with that, but all that does when it comes to the next round of voting is lead the conservative party to a win while fracturing votes between Lib and NDP.

Justin should make it very clear the pros and cons of his decision on oil because information is getting distorted via some sensationalistic headlines.

 

[Simon Belmont]

If the Greens win 4% of the vote, they should get 4% of the seats full stop. Sure, there can be a cut off point, but how many left leaning people voted for the Libs last election instead of their actual preferred party just to get rid of the CPC? You wont ever need to worry about strategic voting again under a PR system.

If you can't field a candidate that can stand in front of a riding and convince the majority of voters to vote for that person then they don't deserve a place as an MP, full stop.

edit: Just to be clear, the 'full stop' is my opinion, obviously that's up for debate. I don't want to come off like a total jerk, even if you are a dirty sens fan

 

[WolfeTone]

Even the probability of a riding going:

A - 35% - Conservative
B - 30% - Liberals
C - 30% - NDP
D - 5% - Greens

Should demonstrate that this is a completely out of date and unrepresentative system. When 65% vote against you, and you still win that riding, that's not exactly representing the will of the people.

Great example. If you'll allow me to edit your post a little for clarity, this illustrates the problem with FPTP. 65% didn't vote for a Conservative MP and given the policies of the other 3 parties, you might say that 65% rejected the Conservative platform. It's not fair that 65% of people in this riding have no representation.

In this example, the Conservatives would just have to win 35% of the vote in 50% of the ridings across the country to get a majority.

FPTP is a terrible voting system. It's been abandoned by the vast majority of the world for a reason.

 

[Azih]

Hey, this is fun. We're apparently on the hook for what you apparently believe are the "failings" of FPTP, so that means you're cool with, say,

It's instructive that you're responding to a post detailing and recounting actual problems that happened and happen in Canada by ignoring each and every one of them. At least Simon is honest about how he doesn't care how insane it is that a country as vast as Canada holds on to a dated archaic system that exaggerates regionalism and leaves millions unrepresented..

We're not going to turn into Spain, or Belgium, or Italy, or even Germany or Sweden or New Zealand, on the implementation of PR. We're going to remain Canada believe it or not. The voting patterns of Canadians will stay pretty much the same for the foreseeable future with or without reform. What will change is that votes currently tossed in the trash bin will actually matter.

PR ain't a panacea but there are reams of obvious bullshit in Canadian politics that would be alleviated by it. I live in a swing riding and I'm still frankly sick of the blather during campaigns about "THE 905!" as if this part of the country is more important just because it happens to swing between the Grits and the Tories.

Political parties and candidates should win and lose. They're competing. I'm a voter. Why the Hell am I being turned into a winner and loser? I'm not competing! I should just vote and be god damn represented as a citizen in the 'representative democracy' that we are apparently living in. I was 'represented' for four god damn years by Brad Butt and I agree with absolutely nothing that came out of that piece of shit's mouth. Fuck that.

And any system of PR suggested for Canada has a high threshold either explicitly or implicitly mentioned.

I'd much rather have a far right party just try and get their 5% of the vote and get seats in parliament for what they really are rather than try and take over an existing big party like the way Reform ate the PCs or the Tea Party took over the Republicans.

 

[gutter_trash]

My biggest fear from Justin's recent decision on Kinder Morgan is that people who voted Liberal will now try to siphon off into NDP. There's nothing wrong with that, but all that does when it comes to the next round of voting is lead the conservative party to a win while fracturing votes between Lib and NDP.

Justin should make it very clear the pros and cons of his decision on oil because information is getting distorted via some sensationalistic headlines.

people have short term memory, look how fast polls changed in the last few weeks of 2015's campaign and 2011's campaign

 

[Simon Belmont]

Great example. If you'll allow me to edit your post a little for clarity, this illustrates the problem with FPTP. 65% didn't vote for a Conservative MP and given the policies of the other 3 parties, you might say that 65% rejected the Conservative platform. It's not fair that 65% of people in this riding have no representation.

In this example, the Conservatives would just have to win 35% of the vote in 50% of the ridings across the country to get a majority.

FPTP is a terrible voting system. It's been abandoned by the vast majority of the world for a reason.

Considering the last time we had a minority Liberal Government the NDP were more willing to work with the PCs than the Liberals, I don't know that you can group the Liberal NDP vote like that. That's not really a super honest portrayal of what's going on there.

It's instructive that you're responding to a post detailing and recounting actual problems that happened and happen in Canada by ignoring each and every one of them. At least Simon is honest about how he doesn't care how insane it is that a country as vast as Canada holds on to a dated archaic system that exaggerates regionalism and leaves millions unrepresented..

We're not going to turn into Spain, or Belgium, or Italy, or even German or Sweden or New Zealand, on the implementation of PR. We're going to remain Canada believe it or not.

PR ain't a panacea but there are reams of obvious bullshit in Canadian politics that would be alleviated by it. I live in a swing riding and I'm still frankly sick of the blather during campaigns about "THE 905!" as if this part of the country is more important just because it happens to swing between the Grits and the Tories.

I was 'represented' for four god damn years by Brad Butt and I agree with absolutely nothing that came out of that piece of shit's mouth. Fuck that.

And in an MMP system you'd still be represented by him.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

If you can't field a candidate that can stand in front of a riding and convince the majority of voters to vote for that person then they don't deserve a place as an MP, full stop.

edit: Just to be clear, the 'full stop' is my opinion, obviously that's up for debate. I don't want to come off like a total jerk, even if you are a dirty sens fan

Except under the current electoral process, where you have party whips getting all MPs in your party to vote a certain way on major votes, specific riding issues don't really come into play. The majority of people vote for the party and its leader, and the actual profile of the riding candidate doesn't get much thought put into by voters (unless the candidate has done something really fucked up). The 2011 election is a great example of that, when you had MPs elected in Quebec that didnt even know French.

And lol

 

[imBask]

Pierre Moreau ferait un meilleur chef au lieu de Couillard,

le PQ de leur bord aurait du choisir Cloutier à place de Lisée

hey, mon intention de voter pour le PQ est passé de 0% à 0.5%, Lisée yé pas mal cool tu saura

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's instructive that you're responding to a post detailing and recounting actual problems that happened and happen in Canada by ignoring each and every one of them.

...says the guy who handwaves away concrete examples of how PR has worked -- sorry actual problems that happened and happen everywhere there's PR, to borrow your italics -- in favour of platitudes about how it won't happen here because reasons.

 

[WolfeTone]

Considering the last time we had a minority Liberal Government the NDP were more willing to work with the PCs than the Liberals, I don't know that you can group the Liberal NDP vote like that. That's not really a super honest portrayal of what's going on there.

I'm talking about voter preferences not what the parties eventually end up doing when they get elected.

I would imagine that the vast majority of NDP voters, if given a second choice, would vote for the Liberals or Greens ahead of the Conservatives.

 

[Pedrito]

hey, mon intention de voter pour le PQ est passé de 0% à 0.5%, Lisée yé pas mal cool tu saura

Y'é étonnement comique "en dehors de la politique". Je sais pas si qqn ici écoute la soirée est encore jeune, mais il est l'un de leurs meilleurs invités réguliers.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Except under the current electoral process, where you have party whips getting all MPs in your party to vote a certain way on major votes, specific riding issues don't really come into play. The majority of people vote for the party and it's leader, and the actual profile of the riding candidate doesn't get much thought put into by voters (unless the candidate has done something really fucked up). The 2011 election is a great example of that, when you had MPs elected in Quebec that didnt even know French.

And lol

Unless we see another candidate literally dying for his campaign, I doubt the NDP can repeat that again.

In head-to-head elections dead people have been elected before. Voters have done strange things in the past.

I think most Canadians expect and accept that the party that wins the most votes gets to lead. There doesn't seem to be a tremendous appetite for coalition governments outside of the NDP and Greens, who obviously stand to benefit the most from them.

I think deadlock is way more dangerous to our political institutions than bad Governments.

I'm talking about voter preferences not what the parties eventually end up doing when they get elected.

I would imagine that the vast majority of NDP voters, if given a second choice, would vote for the Liberals or Greens ahead of the Conservatives.

That's not the way their party leadership behaved when it mattered.

He might have won on the riding level but there'd be a Grit or Dip MP at the regional top up level that I'd go to instead for anything.

Oh boy, a party crony in a gifted seat. Can't wait.

 

[Azih]

And in an MMP system you'd still be represented by him.

He might have won on the riding level but there'd be a Grit or Dip MP at the regional top up level that I'd go to instead for anything.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Y'é étonnement comique "en dehors de la politique". Je sais pas si qqn ici écoute la soirée est encore jeune, mais il est l'un de leurs meilleurs invités réguliers.

C'est loin d'être un imbécile. Il est plutôt calculateur et essaie de surfer sur la vague populiste...

 

[Azih]

..says the guy who handwaves away concrete examples of how PR has worked -- sorry actual problems that happened and happen everywhere there's PR, to borrow your italics -- in favour of platitudes about how it won't happen here because reasons.

First off. The things you mentioned haven't happened in all PR countries. So your 'everywhere there's PR' jibe doesn't make sense.

Second I didn't handwave it away at all. I'm talking about Canadian examples and you're responding with Belgium and Italy. Like I said and I will repeat:

We're not going to turn into Spain, or Belgium, or Italy, or even German or Sweden or New Zealand, on the implementation of PR. We're going to remain Canada believe it or not.

And you're continuing to dodge the odious parts of Canadian politics that are directly attributable to the perverse incentives FPTP and other winner take all systems provide to politicians.

 

[WolfeTone]

Unless we see another candidate literally dying for his campaign, I doubt the NDP can repeat that again.

In head-to-head elections dead people have been elected before. Voters have done strange things in the past.

I think most Canadians expect and accept that the party that wins the most votes gets to lead. There doesn't seem to be a tremendous appetite for coalition governments outside of the NDP and Greens, who obviously stand to benefit the most from them.

I think deadlock is way more dangerous to our political institutions than bad Governments.



That's not the way their party leadership behaved when it mattered.

This isn't what currently happens under FPTP. The party that wins the most ridings gets to lead. It's easy to imagine winning the most ridings but not winning the most votes overall.

 

[Simon Belmont]

This isn't what currently happens under FPTP. The party that wins the most ridings gets to lead. It's easy to imagine winning the most ridings but not winning the most votes overall.

Every form of government has edge cases. None of them are perfect. The norm in Canada is that the winning party gets close to 40% of the vote, which is more than the other parties.

 

[SRG01]

I get what you're trying to say, but this isn't a good argument. Proportionality guarantees that everyone's voice is heard, which is kinda the whole point. If I support the Green party, my vote better damn well matter, and the composition of the government better reflect that. If there's enough votes to elect fucked up fascist MPs, then so be it, that's the whole point of democracy. Cases where countries have a dysfunctional government are not the norm.

Even the probability of a riding going:

A - 35% of the vote and winner
B - 30%
C - 30%
D - 5%

Should demonstrate that this is a completely out of date and unrepresentative system. When 65% vote against you, and you still win that riding, that's not exactly representing the will of the people.

Hold on a second. Wouldn't the other logical step to be holding a second run-off vote? That's what France does, IIRC.

 

[Azih]

This isn't what currently happens under FPTP. The party that wins the most ridings gets to lead. It's easy to imagine winning the most ridings but not winning the most votes overall.

Why imagine when it's happened multiple times?

http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/2016/11/wrong-winner-plurality-reversal.html

 

[Simon Belmont]

Hold on a second. Wouldn't the other logical step to be holding a second run-off vote? That's what France does, IIRC.

No it makes way more sense to group two parties votes together to try and make some point about the will of the electorate, while ignoring who actually won the most votes.

 

[WolfeTone]

Why imagine when it's happened multiple times?

http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/2016/11/wrong-winner-plurality-reversal.html

I imagine because I'm too lazy to look up the data. Thanks for sourcing it.This is a major problem in Canada.

 

[WolfeTone]

Hold on a second. Wouldn't the other logical step to be holding a second run-off vote? That's what France does, IIRC.

Yes that's a valid option and one which I'm sure the electoral reform committee looked into along with Single Transferable Vote, party lists and various other forms of voting that exist out there.

 

[Azih]

Yes that's a valid option and one which I'm sure the electoral reform committee looked into along with Single Transferable Vote, party lists and various other forms of voting that exist out there.

The ERRE looked at all the options and narrowed the possibilities down to MMP and RU-PR which is a made in Canada approach that seeks to keep rural riding sizes the same. Very roughly it's STV in urban areas combined with MMP in non urban areas.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Yes that's a valid option and one which I'm sure the electoral reform committee looked into along with Single Transferable Vote, party lists and various other forms of voting that exist out there.

I'd support runoff voting for sure. My (overstated) problem with PR is indirectly elected MPs.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'd support runoff voting for sure. My (overstated) problem with PR is indirectly elected MPs.

Who cares about the MP.

I vote for party first

 

[Simon Belmont]

Who cares about the MP.

I vote for party first

I care. These people have actual power.

 

[WolfeTone]

Who cares about the MP.

I vote for party first

Either is valid, but it presents one of the conflicts with democracies. Are you voting for someone to represent you and local issues or for who you want to govern the country?

 

[Simon Belmont]

Either is valid, but it presents one of the conflicts with democracies. Are you voting for someone to represent you and local issues or for who you want to govern the country?

I have a PC MP who's actually pretty good. Not who I voted for, but does right by my riding, and doesn't send me borderline propaganda like my last few PC MPs.

 

[firehawk12]

If we had an elected executive, you could vote for your party and your MP separately.

Spoiler

Canadian Republicanism ahoy! lol

But honestly, there are times when an MP's own beliefs contradict the party platform, particularly whenever parties have a convention and decide to change the rules. At the very least you should see if they support whatever issue you are voting for when you choose to support the party.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Some levity

Spoiler

warning: actually depressing, like most good satire

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2016/12/kellie-leitch-cant-win-says-man-said-trump-couldnt-win/

 

[killer rin]

But honestly, there are times when an MP's own beliefs contradict the party platform, particularly whenever parties have a convention and decide to change the rules. At the very least you should see if they support whatever issue you are voting for when you choose to support the party.

The main problem with this however is that all too often do parties whip their vote along with what they want to happen. If the MP's we elected were able to actually state their views on the matter and not just vote in line with the party, the problem would be lessened. But in actuality that does not happen.

If in actual practice the MP's are going to be forced to vote with the Party 90%+ of the time, why even bother voting with what the MP believes in mind, because chances are it's going to be thrown out the window when it actually matters.

Some levity

Spoiler

warning: actually depressing, like most good satire

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2016/12/kellie-leitch-cant-win-says-man-said-trump-couldnt-win/

Ow, that hurts. Good satire though.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'd much prefer Governments get mandates when they win elections. I'd much prefer coalition building happens before I vote. I'd much prefer we didn't reward wide, shallow support, or MPs that can't win the majority of their ridings votes. I also haven't heard a single person mention this as an issue outside the Internet.

People complain about this issue all the time, it's just rarely framed as a specific complaint about how we vote. What I certainly hear all the time in person and read on the net are complaints from people about the fact that their riding isn't competitive and that their vote for their favoured party feels like a pointless exercise, or that their riding is so safe that the parties that don't expect to win run a lousy placeholder candidate. When voting feels like a waste of time due to an expected, unchangeable outcome, the result is that people don't vote, turn out is low and this is what we often see.

These problems go away with PR systems because people know that their vote could elect their favoured candidate at a more regional level and so the value of their vote increases. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives in left leaning Vancouver but they're drowned out in their individual ridings. On a more regional level they could probably elect a representative. This is something that we should welcome. There's a great benefit to a person to have more than one MP or potentially an MP in government and another in Opposition. If a citizen gets no traction on an issue with one MP, they could try with another.

Thinking regionally with this current parliament, there is no one in the Official Opposition from Atlantic Canada. There is going to be a natural tendency for the Opposition to represent their own ridings and interests, and they're going to focus on Atlantic Canada less. Atlantic Canada does not benefit from this lack of attention.

 

[firehawk12]

The main problem with this however is that all too often do parties whip their vote along with what they want to happen. If the MP's we elected we able to actually state their views on the matter and not just vote in line with the party, the problem would be lessened. But in actuality that does not happen.

If in actual practice the MP's are going to be forced to vote with the Party 90%+ of the time, why even bother voting with what the MP believes in mind, because chances are it's going to be thrown out the window when it actually matters.

It depends on whether or not the PM allows for free votes on various issues. Typically it's done on low priority bills so that MPs can go back to their constituents and say they voted a particular way on something even if it goes against the party.

I have no idea if Trudeau has as much as an iron grip as Harper did though. But I wonder if something like weed legalization would be a free vote, since I'm sure there are still some communities that are against it.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Some levity

Spoiler

warning: actually depressing, like most good satire

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2016/12/kellie-leitch-cant-win-says-man-said-trump-couldnt-win/

I get what they're going for, but it's important to remember that the system works against Leitch, whereas it worked to Trump's advantage. Trump won because of winner-take-all primaries, which meant he benefited from a divided opposition. The CPC leadership race is by ranked ballot, so it rewards candidates making nice with each other. I have no idea right now who would have Kellie Leitch as their second choice -- she seems like an all or nothing kind of candidate right now, where if you're a Conservative party member you'll either have her as your top choice or not at all. If she was guaranteed a first-ballot majority that'd work, but considering the size of the field, anyone getting 50% + 1 at this point seems highly unlikely. (For that matter, at this stage anyone getting 30% on the first ballot seems unlikely.) The more divisive she gets, the harder it gets for her to become people's second- or third-choice candidate.

Now, if she somehow wins, then it becomes a lot scarier. I'd hope that it'd lead to a replay of the 2000 election here, where Stockwell Day's extremism became the main issue of the campaign and led to the Canadian Alliance's defeat, but that's not a sure thing.

Thinking regionally with this current parliament, there is no one in the Official Opposition from Atlantic Canada. There is going to be a natural tendency for the Opposition to represent their own ridings and interests, and they're going to focus on Atlantic Canada less. Atlantic Canada does not benefit from this lack of attention.

I disagree. I think that the opposition parties see an opportunity in Atlantic Canada, since they have nowhere to go but up in that region. The Conservatives and the NDP both hammered the Liberals about keeping Atlantic Canadian representation on the Supreme Court, and I think they've been moderately successful with their complaints that the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canadian Opportunities Agency is from Toronto. Likewise, throughout the Harper years, you saw the CPC make occasional stabs at breaking into Quebec, since they wanted to grow where they were weakest. That's also why Trudeau now pays much more attention to Alberta than you'd expect him to, considering they only have a handful of seats. In each case, where you see no reason for parties to pay attention to a region, I see parties making an effort to make inroads.

First off. The things you mentioned haven't happened in all PR countries. So your 'everywhere there's PR' jibe doesn't make sense.

Second I didn't handwave it away at all. I'm talking about Canadian examples and you're responding with Belgium and Italy. Like I said and I will repeat:

And you're continuing to dodge the odious parts of Canadian politics that are directly attributable to the perverse incentives FPTP and other winner take all systems provide to politicians.

...so here's your argument in a nutshell:

"Look at how amazing PR is in some countries!"

But here are examples of other countries where it's led to much more extremism or gridlock.

"Why are you talking about other countries? We're talking about Canada!"

This is literally no different than Harper's arguments on climate change, where he'd castigate anyone who pointed out his shortcomings by going on about "Made in Canada" solutions, thus implying that anyone who disagreed had some nefarious foreign agenda. Simon and I have both said we're fine with FPTP, warts and all, yet you keep saying we're dodging the system's "odious nature" and its "perverse incentives." It's pretty telling -- and pretty intellectually dishonest -- that when you're presented with PR's equally glaring shortcomings, you just handwave them away and move the goalposts.