Canadian Election

[Malcador]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1973812/

 

Gotta love the RCMP

 

Mind you, at least they didn't taser her to death, or slam her to the ground. They're getting better.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Malcador

[Humodour]

I am fully aware that I am dreadfully biased, but these shenanigans see to me merely illustrative of the kind of bull which happens in a coalition system. First past the post may deliver governments which push through unpopular measures on inflated majorities, but it also has a tendency to deliver great bloodletting when parties get out of hand, stripping them of all semblance of power for at least one term.

 

I should also point out that I don't know how Canadians are elected, but I figure I may as well be honest in my ignorant hateful opinions.

 

Where the hell did that come from?

 

You ARE aware that Canada, like Britain and America, and unlike the rest of the world, still uses that horrible first-past-the-post system, right? Coalition governments can form regardless of whether that system exists because all that need happen is for multiple different parties to collectively have a majority of seats and they can form a coalition.

 

Basically: no, you're wrong.

 

What's worse with Canadialand is that BECAUSE it has so many parties AND the first-past-the-post system, parties which are not supported by the vast majority of Canadians can win power simply by pulling more votes than any single other party (and this could happen in any first-past-the-past system). So a party could win government with 20% of the vote as long as all the other parties poll below 20%, even if the supporters of those various parties all agree with each other more than the party that one government. It's not democratic at all.

[Oerwinde]

This was the issue here. But Harper somehow managed to bamboozle the Canadian public into thinking a coalition government that represents a majority of Canadians, is somehow less democratic that a minority rule.

[Volourn]

He didn't bamboozle anybody. And, such a 'ocaltion' doesn't represent the 'majority'. People who vote NDP don't neccessarily agree with Liberals or vice verssa. It's why, afterall, theya re two seperate aprties. If they want to combine into one legit party than do so and run on THAT platform not two seperate ones hence lying to the voters.

[Walsingham]

Basically: no, you're wrong.

 

I did say that might be the case. It's far too easy to look everything up and give a spurious gloss of knowledgeability. Better if for the purposes of the discussion I expose my ignorance early on, I reckon.

 

So thanks for setting me straight.

 

So why is it that Britain virtually never has coalition governments? Voter behaviour?

[Humodour]

He didn't bamboozle anybody. And, such a 'ocaltion' doesn't represent the 'majority'. People who vote NDP don't neccessarily agree with Liberals or vice verssa. It's why, afterall, theya re two seperate aprties. If they want to combine into one legit party than do so and run on THAT platform not two seperate ones hence lying to the voters.

 

No, if anything, it just shows the need for preferential voting. It's a minor alteration to your current electoral system, but a huge increase in the democratic fairness of elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[Walsingham]

I still think preferential voting just encourages muddled thinking, and a muddled offerring. Politicians are bad enough as it is, without offerring them the delightful possibility that they will pick up second place votes just because people don't know enough about them to dislike them.

[Humodour]

Basically: no, you're wrong.

 

I did say that might be the case. It's far too easy to look everything up and give a spurious gloss of knowledgeability. Better if for the purposes of the discussion I expose my ignorance early on, I reckon.

 

So thanks for setting me straight.

 

So why is it that Britain virtually never has coalition governments? Voter behaviour?

 

Soz, was sounding a bit arrogant, hey? But while this is a dry issue, it is important to the democratic health of a country, and as such I take it reasonably seriously.

 

As to your last question, I don't know. I've thought about it a bit, and I guess it just comes down to tradition, cultural attitude, etc, yeah. For example, Australia has a system which is far more favourable to multiple parties and coalitions than Canada or the UK, and yet we still tend to hover around a 2.5 party system (although the past 4 or so years have started to significantly shatter this paradigm).

 

I think part of it comes down to the fact that the UK and Canada have strong regional differences (e.g. Scotland in the UK, Quebec in Canada). In Australia, culture and ideology are far more uniformly distributed. When you apply this to the way seats are won in the lower houses of these countries, it does make sense to get the type of results you do.

[Humodour]

I still think preferential voting just encourages muddled thinking, and a muddled offerring. Politicians are bad enough as it is, without offerring them the delightful possibility that they will pick up second place votes just because people don't know enough about them to dislike them.

 

[Walsingham]

I still think preferential voting just encourages muddled thinking, and a muddled offerring. Politicians are bad enough as it is, without offerring them the delightful possibility that they will pick up second place votes just because people don't know enough about them to dislike them.

 

 

Very helpful.

 

If i may say so in turn, I fear your enthusiasm may be blinding you to the dangers of introducing a novel voting system when you already accept that political culture can have profound embuggering influences on the product of any system.

[Oerwinde]

What's worse with Canadialand is that BECAUSE it has so many parties AND the first-past-the-post system, parties which are not supported by the vast majority of Canadians can win power simply by pulling more votes than any single other party (and this could happen in any first-past-the-past system). So a party could win government with 20% of the vote as long as all the other parties poll below 20%, even if the supporters of those various parties all agree with each other more than the party that one government. It's not democratic at all.

 

The issue there though is that while they can form the government, they can't pass any legislation without the say so of the other parties, so they have to woo other parties by including their agendas in legislation in order to get support for it to pass. Thats how we got socialised medicine. The Liberals didn't have enough support so the NDP promised support in exchange for it. Cooperation between parties is a good thing.

[Guest The Architect]

So who's winning, the moose or the cornmeal pig?

[Oerwinde]

So far according to polls, Canadians prefer liars who piss all over democracy to liars who leave the country for 30 years to teach at prestigious universities.

 

Personally I think its the eyebrows. Canadians just can't get passed Ignatieff's giant eyebrows.

[Walsingham]

What's worse with Canadialand is that BECAUSE it has so many parties AND the first-past-the-post system, parties which are not supported by the vast majority of Canadians can win power simply by pulling more votes than any single other party (and this could happen in any first-past-the-past system). So a party could win government with 20% of the vote as long as all the other parties poll below 20%, even if the supporters of those various parties all agree with each other more than the party that one government. It's not democratic at all.

 

The issue there though is that while they can form the government, they can't pass any legislation without the say so of the other parties, so they have to woo other parties by including their agendas in legislation in order to get support for it to pass. Thats how we got socialised medicine. The Liberals didn't have enough support so the NDP promised support in exchange for it. Cooperation between parties is a good thing.

 

I'm not personally averse to cooperation. But occured to me today that compromise can be appallingly bad. There are policies which need to be enacted properly or not at all. Half way houses are worse than either main divergence.

 

The analogy would be partial circumcision, to appropriate Robin Williams' alarming point.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So far according to polls, Canadians prefer liars who piss all over democracy to liars who leave the country for 30 years to teach at prestigious universities.

 

Personally I think its the eyebrows. Canadians just can't get passed Ignatieff's giant eyebrows.

IMO, I prefer the liar with the manly moustache.

[Oerwinde]

So far according to polls, Canadians prefer liars who piss all over democracy to liars who leave the country for 30 years to teach at prestigious universities.

 

Personally I think its the eyebrows. Canadians just can't get passed Ignatieff's giant eyebrows.

IMO, I prefer the liar with the manly moustache.

 

Everyone likes Jack Layton, but no one wants to vote for his party. I actually used that as a case against an elected Prime Minister when someone at work said it would be a good idea. When the most popular party leader is the leader of the 3rd most popular party, thats not a recipe for stable government if you have elected Prime Ministers. Thats like a reform party candidate being elected president in the US.

 

Also, note for the non-canadians, the French Language leaders debate got bumped for the NHL playoffs because they didn't want to compete with Montreal vs Boston. A win for stereotypes!

Edited April 11, 2011 by Oerwinde

[Oerwinde]

Well, after the Leadership Debates I think Layton came out on top. Harper was constantly on the defensive and kept referring to Canadian democracy as unnecessary. He also has no charisma. Ignatieff stumbled a lot, and while he was pretty effective at keeping Harper on the defensive, he wasn't very effective at making himself look good. Layton on the other hand managed to show some charisma, pushed his party as a valid alternative, and almost never looked bad. Duceppe is irrelevent and realistically shouldn't even be there.

 

Layton's point on proportional representation was good. The Bloc getting around 1.5 million votes and getting 50 seats vs the Green party getting 900,000+ and getting 0 seats is pretty silly.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Oerwinde

[Malcador]

Canadians' reaction to that debate, and all "I dun wanna election!!" whining further confirms my suspicion that the people in this country are twice as stupid as the Americans they enjoy ridiculing. No UBB question, sadly, but I like Duceppe's zingers - beautiful as he doesn't care about English Canada so he can show up, be a **** to the PM

[Walsingham]

Layton's point on proportional representation was good. The Bloc getting around 1.5 million votes and getting 50 seats vs the Green party getting 900,000+ and getting 0 seats is pretty silly.

 

With respect, it's not 'silly' it's 'not proportional'. Most proportional does not automatically mean best decision nor most protection against tyranny, which is surely the object of democracy.

[Oerwinde]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1988246/

 

Pot calls kettle black. Liberals air ad that voices speculation as fact and misrepresents dates to make quotes seem recent, Conservatives upset that they're stealing their methods.

 

NDP has seen huge gains since the debates, gaining 9 points in Ontario, 13 in BC, and 5 points overall nationally. If they can grasp at that and keep pushing, they could replace the Liberals as the #2 party. Hopefully not at the expense of a Harper majority though.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Oerwinde

[Volourn]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ignatieff-try-for...-202736959.html

 

Man. I don't think I've seen a Kanadian politician I've despised as much as this Ignatiff frea. Whaty an absolute douche. He doesn't believe in democracy. His only goal ever has been to be king of Kanada. Seriously, he wants to be PM even if the Conservatives win a majority. It's all about 'I, I, I'. The guy doesn't give about Kanada.

[Malcador]

How doesn't he believe in democracy ? You can form a government once you have the backing of Parliament. Anyway, I doubt that'll happen. No GG wants to rock the boat especially against the people that appointed them, after all.

 

Dumb Canadians.

[Humodour]

Vologic.

[Oerwinde]

Its a likely outcome too. Harper has flat out said he will not work with the opposition parties even if he doesn't win a majority. He will likely table the same budget that everyone said they would vote against and rather than immediately going to another election, the GG will have no choice but to ask the Libs to form a government. Their position will be so fragile that they'll have no choice but to bow to the will of the NDP and the Bloc in order to stay in. What will happen there is a likely increase in social programs and an increase in decentralisation to the provinces. The cons will vote against them at every opportunity simply because they're the liberals even if the legislation they table is in line with their goals because the cons have pretty much become the northern republican party who doesn't care if nothing gets done unless its them thats doing it. Hence using the senate and prorogation to kill legislation they didn't like but the other 3 parties did.

[Oerwinde]

Wow things have changed. The 3rd place NDP are now within 6 points of the Conservatives while the Liberals have dropped to 3rd. These are just polls, but it seems like people are flocking to the socialists.