Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper

[punked]

Uh huh.

I don't believe you, I still see the NDP as a collection of socialist do gooders who will do good on you whether you want it or not, press your children into experimental schools, redistribute other people money, would nationalize anything and everything if they had half a chance, out law the shaving of women's pits and legs and make post coital crying mandatory for men under the age of 76.

The only redeeming factor of the ndp they make the other 2 real parties seem normal.

HELLO SHAVLUK!!!!!

I know you don't believe me but you have shown you know very little about Canadian politics so why should I care what someone who lives in 1950 thinks. You asked when I told you and told you to go read it. You haven't and you look foolish.

Edited November 4, 2009 by punked

[Peter F]

What a dumb article I would never vote Liberal in my life unless they made some serious changes which they never will. Deal or no deal with the NDP I would not vote Liberal if the NDP didn't run here, that is a fact.

I cuncur.

[Keepitsimple]

I read this article when it came out.....I've seen this guy Michael Byers before - mainly on CBC. The article appeared in the Star and was so "over the top" that I didn't know whether to be angry or laugh. The future of the country is in the balance? Liberals, NDP and Greens are the political center? Funny how the rules are OK as long as Conservatives are not in charge. Typical Left-wing bitterness - we lost, so let's change the rules.

The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.

[kimmy]

I thought property prices on Saltspring Island were so high that the only way hippies could live there would be as slave-laborers. Regardless, there seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on in this opinion piece.

The first seems to be the fanciful notion that only in the past 4 years has cynicism and partisanship taken over Canadian politics. This guy seems to have a very short memory, or at least a conveniently short memory.

Secondly, and more importantly to his proposal, the assumption that votes from the dropped candidate would flow to the remaining Liberal or New Democrat candidate is iffy at best. A lot of Liberals would probably vote Conservative before they'd vote NDP. And a lot of NDP supporters apparently don't see much difference between Harper and Ignatieff or their parties, and if it's strictly a popularity contest between the two, Harper might well win (which is more a statement about Ignatieff than about Harper, at this point in time.) As well, I think the Conservatives would have tremendous success campaigning against this; they certainly had no trouble selling Canadians on *their* view of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc alliance last year, and this would likely end up no different. Michael Byers can argue that it's not, but he doesn't decide how people view it. People will view it as they wish, but the non-coalition side is going to have a hard case to make. Don't believe me? Look at the headline of Byers' own op-ed: "Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper" ... kind of lends itself to being interpreted as teamwork, doesn't it? I think something like this would help the Conservatives rally their supporters to the polls... while NDP and Liberal voters could wind up decidedly "meh" on the idea of getting out to the polls if their favorite party wasn't running a candidate in their riding.

-k

[jbg]

I couldnt bring myself to vote for any of our parties right now. Ill probably abstain or piss on my ballot.

Nonvoters get the government they deserve.

[Peter F]

Nonvoters get the government they deserve.

So do voters actually...I vote - but not for libs or conservatives. Does that mean I don't deserve present government? or does it mean I do deserve the present government by not voting for them?

And by not deserving the present government what changes? Zilch.

Your statement is silly and nonsensical. We neither deserve nor not-deserve governments. People who don't vote don't particularly give a damn which group forms the government. Deserving has nothing to do with it.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Peter F

[eyeball]

I'm game for just about anything that would change the course we're on.

Perhaps it would be better if Alberta just separated from Canada and took their goddamn social conservatives, who are clearly amongst the stupidest people on the planet, with them.

[Bryan]

The premise of the article is highly flawed. If the NDP and Liberals were as closely aligned as the author seems to think, their vote and seat count would be more split than it is now, and the NDP would occasionally supersede the Liberal totals. Either that, or they would have just merged years ago.

Many people who vote either Liberal or NDP would never vote for the other under any circumstances. Here in Manitoba for instance, MOST people are likely to vote either Conservative or NDP, but far less likely to vote Liberal (Provincially or Federally). Also, I've seen some of the recent federal voting trend polling appearing to show more back and forth movement between NDP and CPC support than LPC/NDP. What I mean is, when the CPC is down one week by say 2%, it's more often the NDP that's up 2% rather than the Liberals (and vice-versa).

Besides that, the Dippers that are even more to the left that the CPC would never be on their radar, are just as likely to be put off by the Liberals as not left enough. No NDP choice on the ballot could push them either towards an even more marginal party, or they just might not vote. Many Liberals would never vote NDP either. Country-wide, since confederation, the Conservative vs Liberal choice has been the dominant one. An absence of one automatically creates at least some increase for the other.

[Shwa]

I lived through the Bob Rae NDP experiment in Ontatio. No matter how much I respect their leader I would never ever consent with a vote for the NDP. They arent't dangerous because of some "leftist" ideology, they are dangerous because they think ideology can govern. It can't. Which is what Harper is finding out right now - for the second time!

[madmax]

This article provides some needed comic relief on a grinding, hard work day.

He makes a stand up case on why he shouldn't run.

[Argus]

Even though I consistently vote left-of-centre, I'm against proportional representation.

It would give the NDP an almost permanent balance of power, and thereby change our current system to unknown ends. This is the same system that our country used to develop a balance of social safety net and fertile business environment.

If there's one thing we can see from Israel it's how tiny, single-issue parties can wield power enormously out of balance to their actual public support in coallition governments. Those crazy little religious parties have had an enormous cumulative effect on the lives of all Israelis. In a Canada with the same sort of system small parties would proliferate and there's no telling what one of the big two will be willing to compromise on in order to hold power.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Coalition politics could very well be where we are going.

[Shakeyhands]

This article provides some needed comic relief on a grinding, hard work day. I would love to see the reaction of the MP's whose electoral chances are thrown overboard. I would also love to see how people who never in their lives have conceived of voting NDP or Liberal would react to this diktat.

Ummm... isn't this very similar to the Reform PC's amalgamation??? Sure it was more formal but look what uniting the right and far right did.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ummm... isn't this very similar to the Reform PC's amalgamation??? Sure it was more formal but look what uniting the right and far right did.

Good point, but I wonder if Iggy can figure it out.

[Shwa]

"Coalition politics could very well be where we are going."

Let's hope! Because faced with the out-of-touch ideologists of the NDP or CPC, and the absolute intellectual disaster that is the Liberal party, what else are we to chose from?

Unless the Rhinos came back of course...

[eyeball]

If there's one thing we can see from Israel it's how tiny, single-issue parties can wield power enormously out of balance to their actual public support in coallition governments. Those crazy little religious parties have had an enormous cumulative effect on the lives of all Israelis. In a Canada with the same sort of system small parties would proliferate and there's no telling what one of the big two will be willing to compromise on in order to hold power.

Anyone else notice that these bad examples of PR we're always provided are from very geographically small countries where the divisions are almost entirely political, ideological or religous.

Some sort of PR along regional lines alone seems inevitable given the sheer size of our country.

Edited November 4, 2009 by eyeball

[Argus]

Anyone else notice that these bad examples of PR we're always provided are from very geographically small countries where the divisions are almost entirely political, ideological or religous.

Would you prefer Italy?

[Cuzzin E]

Stupid & short sighted idea that would never work. Parkdale, St Pauls, Outremont can only vote 1 MP a piece.

Plus cons & libs are much closer ideologically than the ndp & libs are. How would this benefit the libs any?

This plan worked well for Ms May

[M.Dancer]

Stupid & short sighted idea that would never work. Parkdale, St Pauls, Outremont can only vote 1 MP a piece.

Plus cons & libs are much closer ideologically than the ndp & libs are. How would this benefit the libs any?

This plan worked well for Ms May

And why would a party that could...could get 45% or more of the vote side with one that won't get more that 16%?

[dre]

What about getting rid of the concept of parties entirely.

Have all members sit as independants, and allow people to vote directly for which one will be the "prime minister". He would then have to sell his ideas to majority to enact them. Coalitions of sorts would still popup and dissappear on a case by case basis, but they would be different for each issue and each piece of legislation, as opposed to the static and divisive party politics system.

Being forced by a "party" to vote along "party lines" is pretty much the exact opposite of democracy.

I think "party politics" is starting to cause a lot of problems because its so polarizing and divisive, and I think its inevitable that our system will consolidate into the same two-party left vs right polarization machine thats destroying the United States.

[M.Dancer]

What about getting rid of the concept of parties entirely.]

You would need start a party to sell that idea

Being forced by a "party" to vote along "party lines" is pretty much the exact opposite of democracy.

Quite the opposite. If you don't toe the party line you are free to move your seat and vote any way you please. Parties are there to gather like minded individuals in order to enable certain policies and agendas...308 independants would spend all there time arguing, amending, arging and in the end no vote would ever pass because of the lack of cohesivness and vision.

[eyeball]

Parties are there to gather like minded individuals in order to enable certain policies and agendas...

308 independants would spend all there time arguing, amending, arging and in the end no vote would ever pass because of the lack of cohesivness and vision.

Instituting the practice of locking the doors to Parliament and cutting off both parties and independants their food and water if they refuse to compromise would work for me.

[politicslvr]

You would need start a party to sell that idea

Quite the opposite. If you don't toe the party line you are free to move your seat and vote any way you please. Parties are there to gather like minded individuals in order to enable certain policies and agendas...308 independants would spend all there time arguing, amending, arging and in the end no vote would ever pass because of the lack of cohesivness and vision.

Agreed - Look at Israel - so many parties that nearly every government is a coalition and there is an election every 2 years. If they don't band together their voices are not heard.

Although, looking at the platforms of our Canadian parties, having only a handful of parties that actually gain seats tends to assimilate everyone's viewpoints and we end up with a bunch of parties arguing over trivial matters.

[M.Dancer]

Instituting the practice of locking the doors to Parliament and cutting off both parties and independants their food and water if they refuse to compromise would work for me.

Isn't that your plan to win the neverendumreferendums you wish to hold ad infinitum??

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is a way forward within the present system, and that is through coalition governments. That is the logical progression from multiple party politics and minority governments. It provides the means of enhancing democracy.