Federal Election Polls

[jbg]

since the liberals have to move from centrist position into NDP agendas they lost any identity that made them different from the NDP...so the voter looks at the two of them and sees the NDP with no bad track record or the liberals with lots of previous baggage...the liberal leftward shift made the NDP a viable option...

Looking from outside, not a bad analysis and one of the few times I've agreed with you. Good post.

[Evening Star]

I keep repeating that this could be the start of a very good thing! Canadians end up with two clear electoral choices. The brokerage party of no fixed principles will go the way of the Liberal party in Britain.

As Kimmy said elsewhere, this doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing to me, although I voted NDP. The polarization, partisanship, and back-and-forth of US politics is something I'd like to avoid. I think it's good to have a pragmatic, centrist 'brokerage party'.

However, a polarized two-party system does seem to be every right-winger's fantasy. I'm guessing it's because they'd win elections half the time and could be seen as one of the two credible choices, instead of being at one extreme of a multi-party system.

The NDP will have a chance to grow up! They won't be restricted to appealing just to the fringe demographics. They could become like the British Labour Party, able to work with Big Business without insulting them, while giving more respect to the common man.

I actually agree that the NDP could benefit from having more reponsibility and having to come up with practical solutions to real-world issues. I hope they use someone other than New Labour as their model though. (Considering that New Labour seems pretty similar to our Liberal Party, it does seem a little curious that you'd look forward to the Liberals dying out and being replaced by ... an NDP that's just like the old Liberals.)

Quebec gets a federalist option that better suits their own socialist culture. The BQ will be left with all the old, dying guys stuck in the 60's.

Definitely a good thing.

All of this may be premature though. The polls are showing the NDP tied with the Liberals, not wiping them out...

[Triple M]

that's assuming only the liberals and bloc will lose votes/seats to the ndp...the conservatives held seats are being threatened by the ndp surge as well...in bc, sask, man, even alberta it's the ndp running 1/2 with the conservatives not the liberals....

I'm not assuming that the NDP is getting their support from ex libs/bloc but instead suggesting that if enough libs/bloc voters make the switch than the tories might just sneak in. Also I'm not really seeing a NDP surge in those provinces but I haven't really paid close attention to the regional numbers in the polls this election or as close as I probably should.

[Evening Star]

I'm not assuming that the NDP is getting their support from ex libs/bloc but instead suggesting that if enough libs/bloc voters make the switch than the tories might just sneak in. Also I'm not really seeing a NDP surge in those provinces but I haven't really paid close attention to the regional numbers in the polls this election or as close as I probably should.

Some polls have shown the NDP statistically tied with the CPC in SK/MB and #2 in BC and AB.

[jbg]

Tories will get their majority with a NDP official opposition. End of story.

Didn't you just post yesterday or the day before that "no way" will the CPC get a majority" or words to that effect?

[Mr.Canada]

Didn't you just post yesterday or the day before that "no way" will the CPC get a majority" or words to that effect?

Yes, but then I heard that if the voters think that the Tories will get a majority no matter what that people will be inclined to vote for the party they really want to vote for instead of voting strategically.

So if it looks like a Tory minority people will vote strategically Liberal to block a possible Harper majority. However if it looks like a Tory majority is certain people will vote their first choice more often.

[icman]

Those who cannot convince the most people always seek to blame someone or something else for their failure....they never blame their arguments or policies for their lack of appeal...instead they think it should be like kindergatern....no one loses,,everybody is a winner...even if it most improved or best team spirit.

We don't send people to Ottawa to represent us because they have team spirit or their campaign has improved...we send them because they run good campaigns, they are visible in the community and they can mobilize their support to get out and vote.

My riding will send an MP to Ottawa that I will not vote for. But you will not hear me whine that I think 42% of the sitting MP should be my choice....the collective voters of my riding will make their choice to re-elect the current MP. And the one thing about my riding is, they have sent PCs, they have sent Liberals but they have never sent nobodies to Ottawa.

Dancer,

The argument for PR is a very, VERY simple one. 'We have some 20 million (or so?) eligible voters in Canada. If our democracy is "representative" like we say it is, then the makeup of the House should be, roughly but not exactly, proportional to the popular vote. If it isn't, then you can't say that it is very representative of Canadian views, and that casts doubt on just how representative our system is in general. Guess what, the House looks absolutely nothing like the popular vote. Perhaps if we want to continue calling our electoral system "representative democracy", then we should fix this.'

Such an observation is valid, prima facie, and cannot be dimissed by anyone with a brain solely as "whining loser-speak".

Mind you... supporters of traditional parties, who would be eviscerated by PR, of course will say nothing in favour of a new system which will reduce their stranglehold on power.

[icman]

Harper's been pushing for two-party government. And anything that squeezes out the traitors Bloc Quebecois can't be all bad.

Yeah, and that alone makes Harper a complete moron when it comes to actual governing (as opposed to the back-stabbing scrum politics, at which he excels). Of course, we can add all the other horrible decisions he's made over the past 6 years. I still don't get why people with any brains vote for his team.

[Tilter]

Dancer,

The argument for PR is a very, VERY simple one. 'We have some 20 million (or so?) eligible voters in Canada. If our democracy is "representative" like we say it is, then the makeup of the House should be, roughly but not exactly, proportional to the popular vote. If it isn't, then you can't say that it is very representative of Canadian views, and that casts doubt on just how representative our system is in general. Guess what, the House looks absolutely nothing like the popular vote. Perhaps if we want to continue calling our electoral system "representative democracy", then we should fix this.'

Such an observation is valid, prima facie, and cannot be dimissed by anyone with a brain solely as "whining loser-speak".

Mind you... supporters of traditional parties, who would be eviscerated by PR, of course will say nothing in favour of a new system which will reduce their stranglehold on power.

Harper could be in trouble with the New Liberal Democratic party in the offing. :lol:

[Mr.Canada]

The argument for PR is a very, VERY simple one.

The problem with PR is that their is no way to hold MPs responsible for their actions. The public cannot vote them out individually.The party leaders will able to appoint whomever they wish to MP posts no matter the wishes of the voter.

[RNG]

The problem with PR is that their is no way to hold MPs responsible for their actions. The public cannot vote them out individually.The party leaders will able to appoint whomever they wish to MP posts no matter the wishes of the voter.

I absolutely concurr. Another problem is that it would just about guarentee consistent minority governments and combined with our non-confidence situation, elections every 6 months. (OK, OK, a little hyperbole there, but you know what I'm saying.)

[Wild Bill]

Dancer,

The argument for PR is a very, VERY simple one. 'We have some 20 million (or so?) eligible voters in Canada. If our democracy is "representative" like we say it is, then the makeup of the House should be, roughly but not exactly, proportional to the popular vote. If it isn't, then you can't say that it is very representative of Canadian views, and that casts doubt on just how representative our system is in general. Guess what, the House looks absolutely nothing like the popular vote. Perhaps if we want to continue calling our electoral system "representative democracy", then we should fix this.'

Such an observation is valid, prima facie, and cannot be dimissed by anyone with a brain solely as "whining loser-speak".

Mind you... supporters of traditional parties, who would be eviscerated by PR, of course will say nothing in favour of a new system which will reduce their stranglehold on power.

Actually, I CAN say that our system is representative of Canadian views! It's just that those views are coming from LOCAL areas!

Our system is based on people in individual ridings choosing their representative to Ottawa. This is not supposed to mirror the national popular vote! Just because Alberta is so solidly Tory does that mean that areas of Ontario should have fewer NDP members? That's exactly what would happen if the House mirrored the NATIONAL popular vote! Different ridings in different areas of the country have vastly different interests and concerns. They deserve to be represented and ARE by our present system!

Don't blame our system just because Elizabeth May is so stupid she keeps running in ridings where she has no chance of winning!

It all depends on what you feel is important. By your model, it's obvious that you think representation of local riding interests is irrelevant. Who cares about PEI? They don't have enough population to be significant in terms of the national popular vote so let's ignore their wishes and just appoint their MPs for them, according to how the REST of Canada feels!

You seem to have a problem with math, other than at its most simplistic. Why do you feel that PR would "eviscerate" the traditional parties? Harper is polling more of the popular vote than any other party right now!

No doubt if we ever implemented a PR system the fringe parties would keep demanding changes until they finally got what they wanted - a great number of seats without having to convince any actual local ridings to vote for them!

Edited April 25, 2011 by Wild Bill

[punked]

I am going to be the first and last NDPer to tell you PR is stupid. However a better system would be to have the top 2 candidates go to a run off election. No one should win with less than 50% of the vote.

[nittanylionstorm07]

I am going to be the first and last NDPer to tell you PR is stupid. However a better system would be to have the top 2 candidates go to a run off election. No one should win with less than 50% of the vote.

The best system is honestly a combination, with percentages something like this:

450 district/riding seats determined by instant runoff voting.

50 proportional seats by national party vote. For a party to win a seat, they must have 2% of the vote. Members elected based on this method must remain backbenchers unless no one in their party wins a riding seat.

This is what I want in the US, Canada could have reduced numbers based on population.

[RNG]

The best system is honestly a combination, with percentages something like this:

450 district/riding seats determined by instant runoff voting.

50 proportional seats by national party vote. For a party to win a seat, they must have 2% of the vote. Members elected based on this method must remain backbenchers unless no one in their party wins a riding seat.

This is what I want in the US, Canada could have reduced numbers based on population.

Could you define "instant runoff voting" please.

[punked]

Could you define "instant runoff voting" please.

If no one gets 50% then you go to a run off between top two vote getters.

[Evening Star]

The best system is honestly a combination, with percentages something like this:

450 district/riding seats determined by instant runoff voting.

50 proportional seats by national party vote. For a party to win a seat, they must have 2% of the vote. Members elected based on this method must remain backbenchers unless no one in their party wins a riding seat.

This is what I want in the US, Canada could have reduced numbers based on population.

That seems really problematic to me. What would the 'proportional members' do on votes of conscience, where the party leader does not whip them, for example? They are not representing constituents. Do they get to sit on committees, just like members who were actually elected by their constituents? What sort of input could they give, other than just party talking points? Can they sponsor private members' bills, just like their representative counterparts?

[Evening Star]

If no one gets 50% then you go to a run off between top two vote getters.

Do you mean that you hold a second election between the top two? That's different from my understanding of IRV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[punked]

Do you mean that you hold a second election between the top two? That's different from my understanding of IRV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

I am sorry I guess IRV must be a way to take the runoff out of the equation by dropping those on the bottom and moving their votes around. Don't like it as much as a run off vote.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Could you define "instant runoff voting" please.

IRV is where you rank your electoral choices on the ballot like this:

Ballot

------

Candidate A 2

Candidate B 4

Candidate C 1

Candidate D 3

Then when results come through, the following is similar to what occurs:

Round 1: Candidate A 22% Candidate B 31% Candidate C 14% Candidate D 33%

Round 2: Candidate A 34% Candidate B 32% Candidate D 34%

Round 3: Candidate A 46% Candidate D 54%

Elected: Candidate D

That seems really problematic to me. What would the 'proportional members' do on votes of conscience, where the party leader does not whip them, for example? They are not representing constituents. Do they get to sit on committees, just like members who were actually elected by their constituents? What sort of input could they give, other than just party talking points? Can they sponsor private members' bills, just like their representative counterparts?

They can sponsor bills as they wish and sit on committees. They just cannot make important governmental decisions. This safety measure prevents governments who might lose a "bad" cabinet member from adding him/her to the proportional list and later staying in government.

[icman]

Actually, I CAN say that our system is representative of Canadian views! It's just that those views are coming from LOCAL areas!

Our system is based on people in individual ridings choosing their representative to Ottawa. This is not supposed to mirror the national popular vote! Just because Alberta is so solidly Tory does that mean that areas of Ontario should have fewer NDP members? That's exactly what would happen if the House mirrored the NATIONAL popular vote! Different ridings in different areas of the country have vastly different interests and concerns. They deserve to be represented and ARE by our present system!

Don't blame our system just because Elizabeth May is so stupid she keeps running in ridings where she has no chance of winning!

It all depends on what you feel is important. By your model, it's obvious that you think representation of local riding interests is irrelevant. Who cares about PEI? They don't have enough population to be significant in terms of the national popular vote so let's ignore their wishes and just appoint their MPs for them, according to how the REST of Canada feels!

You seem to have a problem with math, other than at its most simplistic. Why do you feel that PR would "eviscerate" the traditional parties? Harper is polling more of the popular vote than any other party right now!

No doubt if we ever implemented a PR system the fringe parties would keep demanding changes until they finally got what they wanted - a great number of seats without having to convince any actual local ridings to vote for them!

Wild Bill,

I think, from your post, that you are not fully informed on the various methods of implementing PR. Some of them favour a national vote where parties choose representatives from a national pool. Personally, I think that is a horrible method, as not only are regional views not represented, but voters don't really know who they are voting for.

However, that is not the only PR system. There are many which preserve local candidates, who voters elect personally. Single transferable vote is one. There are many variations. This would still require campaigning by candidates to garner votes, and in fact, would make campaigning in individual ridings more important for every canadidate. Most importantly, candidates represent local regions and must campaign in their regions, thereby being accountable to the local voters, which should solve your concerns on that front.

As for how the traditional parties would be eviscerated, I would have thought that would be obvious. (You should think twice before being an a--hole. I do math just fine. Perhaps its YOU who needs a remedial course.) CPC is polling at 36%, but has 45% of the House seats. If they poll between 40% and 50%, they will get anywhere between 55% and 85% of the House seats. That is true for any parties polling at those numbers - Chretien would never have had the overwhelming majority he had in his last government if PR was in place. I'm sorry, but 45% of the popular vote should not garner 75% of the seats in Parliament. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives expect that level of power in the House. All those pricks can talk about is "when I get my Majority", and the governing of Canada goes to hell in the meanwhile. Any party that relies on 45% of the popular vote to get 75% of the say in government is eviscerated by PR. PR would turn the CPC and the Liberals into different parties that they are today because it would change the nature of what they fight over, what they expect, and what they need to do to succeed.

FPTP is an absurd method of choosing representation in multi-party systems, and becomes ever more absurd as the number of parties with support over 8% rises. If this were a two party system, then the popular vote and the House would be roughly in line, most of the time, and there could be few complaints about representative democracy. But we don't have a 2-party system, and nor should we. Canada has diverse regions and diverse people, and to think that two parties could possibly represent that is a ridiculous notion. In a multi-party, FPTP system, the team with 5% more votes will get 20% more power, or even more, and that's simply not right.

[icman]

Further to the PR discussion,

Wild Bill,

You mention fringe parties. Sure, there are fringe parties with ideas that mainstream people simply revile. I don't know how happy I would be to have the Fascist party garner a seat in the house through PR. (Mind you, the corporatists that have taken over the CPC are pretty close. ;-) ) But on the other hand, if 10% of the population voted for the Fascist party, or the Communist party, or the Marijuana party, shouldn't they have a say? And who are you to say that they should not?

There are arguments to be made against PR, that I don't have the rigour to argue effectively (perhaps why I believe in PR).

For example, one objection could be that parties that are newer, or with lower popularity, should have a higher barrier to entry so that they can't end up holding the balance of power in Parliament, and PR makes it easier for fringe parties to get into positions of relative power. That's an interesting argument that deserves some thought.

Unfortunately, what is a fringe party, and who decides that except through a popular vote? And to be completely honest, my problem is not that one or two representatives who will NEVER realistically hold the balance of power might have a wacky worldview. I have more of a problem with huge issues that AREN'T discussed in government because the major parties don't differ (or worse, and more likely, because the issue is controversial and the powerful parties don't it to divide their voters), but 40% or more of the population wants those issues to be revisited, and they NEVER WILL BE so long as the traditional parties have a stranglehold on power.

At the end of the day, for a population to be "self-governing", it's views as a whole must be represented effectively by the people we send to govern on our behalf. So, I say, until the House begins to move toward resembling the popular vote (done in a way that preserves local candidates supported by local populations), Canada is NOT self-governing.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[betsy]

A new poll puts the Liberals and New Democrats in a statistical tie only eight days before the federal election, while the Conservatives hold a lead of more than a dozen percentage points.

The latest Nanos Research poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail put the Conservatives at 38.6 per cent support among decided voters, while the Liberals (25.9 per cent) and NDP (23.2 per cent) stood neck and neck as of Sunday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110424/nanos-poll-110424/20110424?s_name=election2011

Will Liberals, Greens and Blocs who don't like far-left NDP jump to the Tories?

[cybercoma]

The NDP is not far left. The Marxist-Leninst Party and the Communist Party are far left.

[Harry]

Times are a changing.

Sondage - Fédérales 2011

Le «Gros cave» devance les conservateurs

QUESTIONS DU SONDAGE:

Si des élections fédérales avaient lieu aujourd'hui, pour lequel des candidats suivants auriez-vous l'intention de voter?

•Yves Lessard (Bloc Québécois): 37%

•Matthew Dubé (Nouveau Parti démocratique): 24%

•Jean-François Mercier (indépendant): 15%

•Bernard Delorme (Parti libéral du Canada): 15%

•Nathalie Ferland-Drolet (Parti conservateur): 7%

Les partisans de Jean-François Mercier ont voté en 2008 pour :

•Bloc Québécois: 49%

•Parti libéral: 10%

•Parti vert : 8%

•Parti conservateur: 7%

•NPD: 3%

http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/national/federales2011/archives/2011/04/20110424-071516.html