betsy Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 On April 23 the total leadership scores for the major party leaders were: (Change from April 21 in brackets) • Stephen Harper: 93.9 (+5.8) • Jack Layton: 73.7 (+0.8) • Michael Ignatieff: 38.4 (-6) • Elizabeth May: 11.2 (+3.4) • Gilles Duceppe: 10.8 (-0.4) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110424/nanos-leadership-poll-110424/20110424?s_name=election2011 Whoa, May gets higher score than Diuceppe! Quote
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110424/nanos-leadership-poll-110424/20110424?s_name=election2011 Whoa, May gets higher score than Diuceppe! I would assume that these are national numbers, so Duceppe's low numbers aren't surprising. I'm sure a Quebec only result would be much different, while the Greens are supposed to be national. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
TimG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) 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?Short answer no.Governing a country is difficult and requires compromise. We need a system the encourages people to make those compromises when they are choosing who to vote for. Buffet style voting where every voter gets a party that exactly represents their views is not practical or reasonable. Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG Quote
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Short answer no. Governing a country is difficult and requires compromise. We need a system the encourages people to make those compromises when they are choosing who to vote for. Buffet style voting where every voter gets a party that exactly represents their views is not practical or reasonable. So? Do we restrict parties on some artificial basis, or just keep our first past the post? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
cybercoma Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Fringe parties are not a problem in PR systems because they usually set a benchmark for seats (ie: >2% or 5%). Quote
Evening Star Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 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. But this seems like a problem to me. Currently, our MPs have the right to sponsor bills and sit on committees because they were actually elected by and represent their local constituents. Members who would sit in the House because of PR would simply be party members who are there to fill a seat for their particular party. So it does not seem as fair for them to have the right as individuals to sponsor bills or sit on committees and have all the powers of actually elected members. I generally tend to think that PR gives political parties (as opposed to individual local representatives) too much power and importance. In any case, afaict, moving to proportional representation would be a constitutional amendment that would require the assent of both Houses of Parliament and the legislatures of seven provinces containing at least 50% of the country's population. (I'm no constitutional expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong.) I don't think anyone wants to reopen the constitution now. Alternative Vote/IRV would probably be constitutional though...? Quote
TimG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) So? Do we restrict parties on some artificial basis, or just keep our first past the post?FPTP requires the formation of big tent parties. Voters are forced to make the major compromises when they vote instead of leaving it up to the backroom boys after the election. This leads to better government. But it also guarantees that voters will never be voting for a party that represents them perfectly. Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG Quote
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 FPTP requires the formation of big tent parties. Voters are forced to make the major compromises when they vote instead of leaving it up to the backroom boys after the election. This leads to better government. But it also guarantees that voters will never be voting for a party that represents them perfectly. Are you really still hoping for perfection in any part of your life on this earth? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
jbg Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 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. Do you mean a riding-by-riding runoff? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
punked Posted April 25, 2011 Author Report Posted April 25, 2011 Do you mean a riding-by-riding runoff? Yeppers. Give em 2 more weeks to slug it out and then we all go back to the polls again. Quote
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Yeppers. Give em 2 more weeks to slug it out and then we all go back to the polls again. You may be that rich but I'm not. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
punked Posted April 25, 2011 Author Report Posted April 25, 2011 You may be that rich but I'm not. It would give you more majority governments thus less elections. I know money and adding isn't your strong suit but think about. Have the election 1 week shorter add an extra week for the run off. Quote
nittanylionstorm07 Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 FPTP requires the formation of big tent parties. Voters are forced to make the major compromises when they vote instead of leaving it up to the backroom boys after the election. This leads to better government. But it also guarantees that voters will never be voting for a party that represents them perfectly. Soooo less choice is better than more choice? Isn't that the opposite of what Conservatives supposedly believe about the economy? (I tend to think they don't, they'd rather have monopolistic corporations or a system that leads to them without understanding the consequences) Quote
TimG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Soooo less choice is better than more choice?Choosing a government is not like ordering dinner. You have to compromise. Quote
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 It would give you more majority governments thus less elections. I know money and adding isn't your strong suit but think about. Have the election 1 week shorter add an extra week for the run off. The campagning don't cost me, just the contributers. It's the setting up voter lists, renting voting rooms, printing ballots etc, etc. And that ain't cheap. Want to compare degrees earned? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Guest Derek L Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Soooo less choice is better than more choice? Isn't that the opposite of what Conservatives supposedly believe about the economy? (I tend to think they don't, they'd rather have monopolistic corporations or a system that leads to them without understanding the consequences) Thats incorrect, true economic conservaties beleive that a monopoly,is one of the few cases in which government should interfere with the free market. Edited April 25, 2011 by Derek L Quote
punked Posted April 25, 2011 Author Report Posted April 25, 2011 The campagning don't cost me, just the contributers. It's the setting up voter lists, renting voting rooms, printing ballots etc, etc. And that ain't cheap. Want to compare degrees earned? Sure we can compare degrees earned if you want. B.Sc Math B.Ed M.Ed working on my Ph.D. It cost less when you have Majority governments that is just common sense. Quote
jbg Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Yeppers. Give em 2 more weeks to slug it out and then we all go back to the polls again. I'd have to think about it but probably not a bad idea. Maybe space it a bit closer though. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
RNG Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Sure we can compare degrees earned if you want. B.Sc Math B.Ed M.Ed working on my Ph.D. It cost less when you have Majority governments that is just common sense. B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D. Why doesn't education surprise me? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
punked Posted April 25, 2011 Author Report Posted April 25, 2011 B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D. Why doesn't education surprise me? No clue must be because I have more degrees then you do. Quote
Harry Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) This election is still wide open, and at this point, very few, if any people know the outcome. A vote for Jack is a vote for Jack. Period. With 29% of the vote (32% in British Columbia, 22% in Alberta, 35% in the Prairies, 24% in Ontario, 36% in Quebec, and 38% in Atlantic Canada), the New Democrats would win 83 seats. Yes, that's right. They would win 11 in British Columbia, two in Alberta, eight in the Prairies, 19 in Ontario, 31 in Quebec, and 11 in Atlantic Canada. It would be about twice their historic best. The Conservatives would still win 145 seats and have first crack at a minority government. The Liberals would be reduced to 50 seats while the Bloc Québécois would win only 30. Jack Layton becomes the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the first man the Governor-General turns to if the Conservatives are unable to get a Throne Speech or budget passed. http://thestar.blogs.com/davidolive/2011/04/a-vote-for-jack-is-a-vote-for-jack-period.html Edited April 25, 2011 by Harry Quote
Triple M Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Latest Nanos Conservative 39.2 Liberal 25.6 NDP 23.6 BQ 6.5 The latest Nanos is showing strong support for the Tories in every region outside of Quebec. Atlantic Conservative 47.5 Liberal 29.8 NDP 21.0 Quebec NDP 30.2 BQ 27.4 Liberal 22.0 Conservative 14.1 Ontario Conservative 47.8 Liberal 29.3 NDP 16.9 Prairies Conservative 47.9 NDP 24.2 Liberal 23.9 BC Conservative 44.1 NDP 27.4 Liberal 24.0 These regional numbers should obviously with a grain of salt due to the large margin of error because I canèt really believe the CPC would be in the high 40s in Ontario. Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 There are arguments to be made against PR, that I don't have the rigour to argue effectively (perhaps why I believe in PR). I think where we differ is that I don't believe that the true goal of those parties pushing any form of PR is a more democratic system. Rather, I think they are just trying to boost their own representation when they simply are not popular enough to do it under our present system. As an Ontarioan, I was given evidence of this by the nature of the PR system that was on our ballot last election. It called for extra MPPs to be appointed BY THE PARTIES THEMSELVES! Either this was done through naked greed or abysmal ignorance. Either way, I totally lost respect for those pushing the idea. Whatever! As you say, our system works better with fewer parties involved. If Jack manages to kill off the Liberals the question will become moot. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Fringe parties are not a problem in PR systems because they usually set a benchmark for seats (ie: >2% or 5%). Is that not what our present system does? Set a benchmark of winning a seat, ANY seat out of 308! Surely a new party can win a seat somewhere if they are truly popular. We did it with Reform! Why can't any other party? Reform proved that it can be done. This makes other contenders who would rather change the rules look like whiners who just can't cut it. As I said before, it's not the fault of our system that Elizabeth May is consistently too stupid to run in a seat where she might have a chance! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Evening Star Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Hm, could these numbers mean a Tory majority? Latest Nanos The latest Nanos is showing strong support for the Tories in every region outside of Quebec. Atlantic Conservative 47.5 Liberal 29.8 NDP 21.0 Quebec NDP 30.2 BQ 27.4 Liberal 22.0 Conservative 14.1 Ontario Conservative 47.8 Liberal 29.3 NDP 16.9 Prairies Conservative 47.9 NDP 24.2 Liberal 23.9 BC Conservative 44.1 NDP 27.4 Liberal 24.0 These regional numbers should obviously with a grain of salt due to the large margin of error because I canèt really believe the CPC would be in the high 40s in Ontario. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.