Canadian Politics Thread

[The Lock]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

I guess the argument back is, if Canada is consistently 60-65 percent not conservative, why should conservatives have power?

 

Where has that been happening?

[The Lock]

@Bob Long A quick lookup and we see the popular vote mostly align with who gets elected, at least since 2000. Only when there's a minority, do we see the popular vote ever-so-slightly shift and a party who didn't have the popular vote get into power.

 

This, in a way, creates a new argument. Since the popular vote aligns fairly well with who gets in, we're arguably well balanced with that. A "shift" in voting could skew that alignment. The real reason why the left doesn't get into power as much is because it's broken up between the Liberals and the NDP and NOT because of a need to shift votes.

 

Now, all of that of course depends on how the popular vote is created which could be something to look into. My expectation (and hope) is that it's created through a direct tally of everyone's vote regardless of what district they're in.

Edited June 8 by The Lock

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

@Bob Long A quick lookup and we see the popular vote mostly align with who gets elected, at least since 2000. Only when there's a minority, do we see the popular vote ever-so-slightly shift and a party who didn't have the popular vote get into power.

 

This, in a way, creates a new argument. Since the popular vote aligns fairly well with who gets in, we're arguably well balanced with that. A "shift" in voting could skew that alignment. The real reason why the left doesn't get into power as much is because it's broken up between the Liberals and the NDP and NOT because of a need to shift votes.

 

Now, all of that of course depends on how the popular vote is created which could be something to look into. My expectation (and hope) is that it's created through a direct tally of everyone's vote regardless of what district they're in.

 

sure but popular vote is kind of a double edged argument. Unless you're getting 50%+ your party doesn't represent a majority position. 

 

Last time we saw 50% was 1984. 1958 before then. (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html).

 

It's really rare for a Conservative Party to be that popular. If you lump all the non-con's together its almost always a much larger group.

 

[Optimist Prime]

16 hours ago, bolt said:

Yet China's emissions are dramatically increasing.  Good for Canadian exports of coal which is up substantially over the last 9 years.

 

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

 

Are you seriously commending Chinas incredibly bad environmental track record?

 

 

I am talking about their future and their goals, they have them. 

Pierre Poilevre does not. 

[Optimist Prime]

18 hours ago, aGENT said:

I like the "idea" of better proportional representation that more accurately reflects the actual wishes of voters offered under proportional...but they need to come up with something WAY more straight forward IMO. Just too damn convoluted to vote, assign seats, get local reps etc, etc. Also need to do something about the risk of extremist groups potentially getting seats. That's no bueno IMO.

Ranked Ballot is where it is at. I am dead against giving a party seats to doll out to the cronies, party faithful, inner circle and sycophants. That is actually anti-democratic when all is said and done: 16% of folks like the NDP so lets see now. Jagmeet gets a seat, ummm Mrs Layton gets a seat...the three loudest cheerleaders for Jagmeet get a seat, i guess the runner up in the party leader election gets a seat...(i wish i knew more names in the federal NDP, lol, but you get the idea...) 

How about a bunch of folks run for election in your riding, the one that 50% plus 1 of the voters can agree is the best choice wins. Ta Daaaa, zero shenanigans. 

 

EDIT: Taking it to its logical end: imagine Trumps party wins 16% of the vote share while he is their leader: Seats would be for Eric, Don Jr, Donalds love of his life: his daughter, and their spouses.....et cetera et cetera. Prop Rep is a JOKE when it comes down to trusting the parties to decide the people in Parliament. 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

sure but popular vote is kind of a double edged argument. Unless you're getting 50%+ your party doesn't represent a majority position. 

 

Last time we saw 50% was 1984. 1958 before then. (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html).

 

It's really rare for a Conservative Party to be that popular. If you lump all the non-con's together its almost always a much larger group.

 

 

This is why I mentioned the real reason things would seem skewed to someone like you or agent (I'm assuming) would be because the votes on the left are split between the Liberals, the NDP, some to the Bloc, a sliver to the Green. There are a lot more left wing parties then there are right wing parties.

 

We are not the states where we just have 2 parties. We are a multi-party system (and we should probably be thankful for that). It just so happens that most of the parties are currently on the left or center-left.

 

Perhaps what the left should hope for is that the PPC gain traction so that the CPC gets broken up further. Sounds like a weird way to think. Better yet, bring back the Reform Party or something. I'd much rather support that long before we start tampering with our elections.

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

We are not the states where we just have 2 parties. We are a multi-party system (and we should probably be thankful for that). It just so happens that most of the parties are currently on the left or center-left.

There is a reason: Canada is left or center left. It isn't the number of pizza places vs donair shops, it is that most people buy pizza and so there are more pizza shops. 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Ranked Ballot is where it is at. I am dead against giving a party seats to doll out to the cronies, party faithful, inner circle and sycophants. That is actually anti-democratic when all is said and done: 16% of folks like the NDP so lets see now. Jagmeet gets a seat, ummm Mrs Layton gets a seat...the three loudest cheerleaders for Jagmeet get a seat, i guess the runner up in the party leader election gets a seat...(i wish i knew more names in the federal NDP, lol, but you get the idea...) 

How about a bunch of folks run for election in your riding, the one that 50% plus 1 of the voters can agree is the best choice wins. Ta Daaaa, zero shenanigans. 

 

EDIT: Taking it to its logical end: imagine Trumps party wins 16% of the vote share while he is their leader: Seats would be for Eric, Don Jr, Donalds love of his life: his daughter, and their spouses.....et cetera et cetera. Prop Rep is a JOKE when it comes down to trusting the parties to decide the people in Parliament. 

 

I actually wouldn't be against a ranked ballot. That at least is not altering anything to do with giving certain parties more power due to what is effectively the same idea as gerrymandering.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

There is a reason: Canada is left or center left. It isn't the number of pizza places vs donair shops, it is that most people buy pizza and so there are more pizza shops. 

 

See my initial response to agent about this. I mentioned basically how that's generally because we have more people living in the city (who tend to vote left or center left) than we have people living in rural areas (who tend to vote right wing).

[aGENT]

41 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

So then you do realise there would be a shift. These are going to be positives for you because you're more left leaning. It's essentially wanting the country and everyone in it to shift towards your direction.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I'm really against shifting a country for one's own narrative. I get the frustration with the right these days, but that will change back over time once we're rid of Trump. We don't need voter changes to bring things back to the way things were before.

 

The country is already (normally, despite recent polling) shifted left. Roughly 2/3-3/4 of Canadians consider themselves progressive. This would just more accurately reflect that. It would also mean less liberal majorities too FWIW.

 

I don't know how more accurate voting/electing could possibly considered bad.

[Bob Long]

20 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

This is why I mentioned the real reason things would seem skewed to someone like you or agent (I'm assuming) would be because the votes on the left are split between the Liberals, the NDP, some to the Bloc, a sliver to the Green. There are a lot more left wing parties then there are right wing parties.

 

I used to vote PC pre-merger with the reformers, have voted mostly lib since, but green and NDP once. 

 

20 minutes ago, The Lock said:

We are not the states where we just have 2 parties. We are a multi-party system (and we should probably be thankful for that). It just so happens that most of the parties are currently on the left or center-left.

 

Perhaps what the left should hope for is that the PPC gain traction so that the CPC gets broken up further. Sounds like a weird way to think. Better yet, bring back the Reform Party or something. I'd much rather support that long before we start tampering with our elections.

 

I'm not actually arguing that Canadian conservative parties should never hold power. But I don't think the argument that it might be harder for them is the reason to not bring in more a representative voting system holds much water either. If they want power, they'll have to learn to work with at least one more centre party, and thats not a bad thing imo. 

 

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I actually wouldn't be against a ranked ballot. That at least is not altering anything to do with giving certain parties more power due to what is effectively the same idea as gerrymandering.

 

Ranked ballot is what I'm talking about FYI. I don't support the proportional system either. It's still election reform.

Edited June 8 by aGENT

[The Lock]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The country is already (normally, despite recent polling) shifted left. Roughly 2/3-3/4 of Canadians consider themselves progressive. This would just more accurately reflect that. It would also mean less liberal majorities too FWIW.

 

I don't know how more accurate voting/electing could possibly considered bad.

 

Again, a lot of it is because the parties on the left are split up which is where most of that 2/3 to 3/4 is at. Some vote Liberal. Some vote NDP, etc.

 

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Besides, I need to spend my energy elsewhere anyway. Perhaps I'll be on tonight or tomorrow if you want a follow-up.

[Elias Pettersson]

25 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

This is why I mentioned the real reason things would seem skewed to someone like you or agent (I'm assuming) would be because the votes on the left are split between the Liberals, the NDP, some to the Bloc, a sliver to the Green. There are a lot more left wing parties then there are right wing parties.

 

We are not the states where we just have 2 parties. We are a multi-party system (and we should probably be thankful for that). It just so happens that most of the parties are currently on the left or center-left.

 

Perhaps what the left should hope for is that the PPC gain traction so that the CPC gets broken up further. Sounds like a weird way to think. Better yet, bring back the Reform Party or something. I'd much rather support that long before we start tampering with our elections.

The Liberals aren’t a left wing party. At least they never used to be. That’s how they’ve been able to be in power for so long over the decades. 
 

The fact that they are considered “left wing” today is the reason why they will be losing the next election. If they elected a new leader and moved to the centre again they’d easily win another election. 

[The Lock]

Just now, aGENT said:

 

Ranked ballot is what I'm talking about FYI. I don't support the proportional system either. It's still election reform.

 

Then at least we're not fully on opposite sides here. I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from with my stance nevertheless. Whether you agree or disagree can be another thing.

[The Lock]

Just now, Elias Pettersson said:

The Liberals aren’t a left wing party. At least they never used to be. That’s how they’ve been able to be in power for so long over the decades. 
 

The fact that they are considered “left wing” today is the reason why they will be losing the next election. If they elected a new leader and moved to the centre again they’d easily win another election. 

 

I don't disagree with this. The Liberals have shifted it's very evident. It's the reason why I feel like I have no one to vote for as I've mentioned before. lol

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The Liberals aren’t a left wing party. At least they never used to be. That’s how they’ve been able to be in power for so long over the decades. 
 

The fact that they are considered “left wing” today is the reason why they will be losing the next election. If they elected a new leader and moved to the centre again they’d easily win another election. 

They're centre-left. Always have been. The cons have moved further right from centre than the Liberals have moved left FYI.

Edited June 8 by aGENT

[Bob Long]

25 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I actually wouldn't be against a ranked ballot. That at least is not altering anything to do with giving certain parties more power due to what is effectively the same idea as gerrymandering.

 

bingo. It's a nice compromise imo, we get better representation of what people want, but its not some rigged up thing that shuts out entire regions, or lets tiny loonie parties in either. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Again, a lot of it is because the parties on the left are split up which is where most of that 2/3 to 3/4 is at. Some vote Liberal. Some vote NDP, etc.

 

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Besides, I need to spend my energy elsewhere anyway. Perhaps I'll be on tonight or tomorrow if you want a follow-up.

 

Under the current system, people don't feel able to actually vote for their preferred candidate/party and feel they need to vote strategically. Voting reform would simply give smaller parties a better chance of gaining votes/seats. How many Canadians are progressive doesn't change. We already make up a majority by far. Ranked ballot simply means less majority governments for both the Liberals and Cons, closer results to voters ACTUAL intentions, better representation for smaller parties. All good things IMO. I honestly can't grasp how people would be opposed.

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They're centre-left. Always have been. The cons have moved further right from centre than the Liberals have moved left FYI.

The “business liberal” no longer exists. You can call them centre left, centre, whatever. The fact is the Liberal party today is basically an extension of the NDP. That’s why the Conservatives are ahead in the polls even though the Conservatives have shifted more to the right. 
 

There is no centrist party any longer. If there was that party would easily win the next election. As of now you are either voting left or right. There is no in between. Which is why the Liberals have screwed themselves under Trudeau. They haven’t been able to win a majority since 2015 when Trudeau was supposed to be the next great Liberal leader. 

Edited June 8 by Elias Pettersson

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Under the current system, people don't feel able to actually vote for their preferred candidate/party and feel they need to vote strategically. Voting reform would simply give smaller parties a better chance of gaining votes/seats. How many Canadians are progressive doesn't change. We already make up a majority by far. Ranked ballot simply means less majority governments for both the Liberals and Cons, closer results to voters ACTUAL intentions, better representation for smaller parties. All good things IMO. I honestly can't grasp how people would be opposed.

 

Well we already established we're both for a ranked ballot.

 

What I would be against is anything that makes it so that certain regions are underrepresented just because they have less of a population. If you divided regions up strictly based on population, most of the districts would be in the city, meaning less seats in the rural areas.

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Under the current system, people don't feel able to actually vote for their preferred candidate/party and feel they need to vote strategically. Voting reform would simply give smaller parties a better chance of gaining votes/seats. How many Canadians are progressive doesn't change. We already make up a majority by far. Ranked ballot simply means less majority governments for both the Liberals and Cons, closer results to voters ACTUAL intentions, better representation for smaller parties. All good things IMO. I honestly can't grasp how people would be opposed.

 

 

 

people get fear-convinced that their view will never have power and/or always be subservient to anther group. 

 

Nothing about ranked ballot stops a very popular party from getting 50%+ of seats. There could still be another 1984 Mulroney type victory. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

people get fear-convinced that their view will never have power and/or always be subservient to anther group. 

 

Nothing about ranked ballot stops a very popular party from getting 50%+ of seats. There could still be another 1984 Mulroney type victory. 

Yup, have good ideas, good economic policy, good leadership, want to actually improve things for Canadians? Majority! 

 

Where's that party today?....

[Bob Long]

Just now, aGENT said:

Yup, have good ideas, good economic policy, good leadership, want to actually improve things for Canadians? Majority! 

 

Where's that party today?....

 

well, the CPC was taken over by the whiney victimhood reformers, so thats out. 

 

Hair boy has outlasted his best years.

 

Jag, is, well Jag.

 

Dunno 

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The “business liberal” no longer exists. You can call them centre left, centre, whatever. The fact is the Liberal party today is basically an extension of the NDP. That’s why the Conservatives are ahead in the polls even though the Conservatives have shifted more to the right. 
 

There is no centrist party any longer. If there was that party would easily win the next election. As of now you are either voting left or right. There is no in between. Which is why the Liberals have screwed themselves under Trudeau. They haven’t been able to win a majority since 2015 when Trudeau was supposed to be the next great Liberal leader. 

 

Well at least you slowly seem to be coming around to the concept that the are Cons largely the mirror of the Liberals, and not in fact an improvement.