Federal Election Polls

[Smallc]

Those numbers would mean that, yes. The NDP is stealing a significant number of Liberal and Bloc votes under that scenario, and the Conservatives are ahead of where they were last election (except in Quebec, where they may lose a couple seats by these numbers).

Edited April 25, 2011 by Smallc

[icman]

Choosing a government is not like ordering dinner. You have to compromise.

No, I don't. That's why I elect a representative. THEY have to compromise with the other representatives.

And PR does not make a perfect candidate for every voter, but it does introduce more views to governing, and that can only be for the good. Unless you believe that bad action sooner is better than good action later, because any bad action can be reversed. Me, I disagree with that notion, because it takes longer and more resources to correct a bad action than to take the time to do it right the first time, even if taking that time tries peoples' patience.

If your objection to PR is anything other than "My party will lose influence" or "I just hate change", then I am not understanding you. And I would like to understand.

[punked]

Those numbers would mean that, yes. The NDP is stealing a significant number of Liberal and Bloc votes under that scenario, and the Conservatives are ahead of where they were last election (except in Quebec, where they may lose a couple seats by these numbers).

It has nothing to do with the NDP and everything to with the Ontario numbers. The NDP haven't moved in those numbers the Liberals have lost this election all by them selves.

[Molly]

No, I don't. That's why I elect a representative. THEY have to compromise with the other representatives.

And PR does not make a perfect candidate for every voter, but it does introduce more views to governing, and that can only be for the good. Unless you believe that bad action sooner is better than good action later, because any bad action can be reversed. Me, I disagree with that notion, because it takes longer and more resources to correct a bad action than to take the time to do it right the first time, even if taking that time tries peoples' patience.

If your objection to PR is anything other than "My party will lose influence" or "I just hate change", then I am not understanding you. And I would like to understand.

My objection to PR is that voters representatives will be even more beholden to political parties (and thus be even less responsible to the people who elect them) than they are now.

[icman]

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?

You are right. It's not cheap. But compared to every other item in the federal budget, it's chump change - and a worthy investment if it will create a government that best represents the wants and needs of the most Canadians.

This Canadian phenomena of 4 elections in 7 years is a result of minority governments, but it is not a property of minority governments per se. Whether due to the adoption of Proportional Representation, or simply a significant divide among the electorate, any switch from predominantly majority governments to predominantly minority governments was inevitably going to spawn a period of lots of elections, because parties accustomed to majority governments don't work and play nice with others. Parties jockeying for majorities don't compromise. The Conservatives in this case are a prime example. They are the worst at blocking committees, playing the opposition parties off against one another to push unpopular legislation, and negative campaigning outside of elections cycles. (That is not to say that the Liberals smell like roses - I am sure that the Libs would do the same things if they were in the same position, but they aren't and haven't been in a long time, so the CPC takes the hit for now.) All in the name of seeking a majority.

Once the electorate and the Parliament get accustomed to minority governments, and the electorate starts to get pissed off because Parliament is always deadlocked, MPs will get the message and start to cooperate. Cooperating parties is the mainstay of most Parliamentary democracies around the globe. Cooperating MPs get more done that stays done than even majority government do. But that change takes time - for the parties to learn to cooperate and for the electorate to figure out that they need to hold their MPs responsible for not cooperating.

Canada is not becoming more and more monolithic. It is becoming more and more diverse. The GPC won't be the last national party with a new spin, and the Wild Rose won't be the last regional party that gains enough traction in one corner of Canada to steal a seat in the House. So majority governments will never again be the rule. They will be the exception.

I say, move to PR now, bite the bullet, and get the pain over sooner.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[icman]

My objection to PR is that voters representatives will be even more beholden to political parties (and thus be even less responsible to the people who elect them) than they are now.

Molly, there are many ways to execute Proportional Representation, and many of them keep the candidates beholden to their constituents in their riding. However, as my colleague pointed out to me, most candidates are currently beholden to their parties more than their constituents, because most people vote for the party and not for the local candidate anyway. How many people did you see come out to the all-candidates debates in your riding of ~65,000 eligible voters?

Rare is the person who takes the candidate's record and personal message into consideration when marking their ballot (in other words, would consider voting for a different party than they normally do if the local candidate for their party sucked). Rarer still is the person who votes only on their local candidate without regard to the party they represent.

[icman]

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.

Yeah, the campaign for PR in Ontario was done so poorly, was so outrageously bad, that I truly believe that the groups called upon to organize the campaign were managed by people who actually WANTED PR to tank. The ads on TV seemed designed to make PR look like a fraud. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw those ads on TV. Uninformative and confusing at best, deliberate misinformation at worst.

No-one who had any idea of what PR is and can be was involved in putting that campaign together, or putting the study together. It is clear to me that the whole thing was put together by the sitting Liberals and their influence peddlers to discredit PR to the Ontario population, in a way that allows them to now say - "We already looked into that in 2008, and Ontarioans decided that they didn't want PR." As if Ontarioans could make an informed decision based on the (mis)information campaign.

I'm still pissed off about that whole debacle.

You should look at the GPC's website someday. They have always pushed PR as part of their social justice platform - not just since they started to get media attention and had a shot at putting MPs in Parliament. And as of the debates when Jack openned the PR door again (bless his heart), adoption of PR will halve his party's presence in Ottawa. So he can hardly be called out as oppourtunistically supporting PR.

[icman]

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!

Elizabeth May running in a difficult district is not the justification for PR, so please, its not necessary for you to repeat that. ;-) The justification for PR is simply to create a Parliament that is reasonably in line with Canadian voters, Elizabeth May's difficulties notwithstanding. (Note that Jack is in favour of PR too, and brought it up at the English debate even though PR would halve his representation in Ottawa.)

I suppose I can say this only of myself, but if the GPC (my party of choice) won a majority tomorrow based on 45% of the popular vote, I'd still want PR in place so that the 8% of Canadians who are fascist-leaning CPC supporters would have a voice in Parliament instead of getting sidelined and angry and feeling like they have no say in what goes on.

Look at Alberta! Their main complaint over the last 50 years (until Harper) has been that Ottawa ignores their wants and needs, that the rest of Canada shits on them at the same time as they benefit from Alberta oil, and that they should have a voice when they provide so much to Canada. Albertans as a group have long been supremely resentful of Ontario and Quebec and the disproportionate amount of power that accretes to those regions in federal politics. (I know this first hand - I lived in Edmonton for a time. Albertans are wonderful people, but the claws come out when you start talking about Eastern Canada and Ottawa.) PR would put Wild Rose in the House, and if 30% of some regional group of 450,000 people in Alberta wants a Wild Rose rep, they should get it.

You haven't addressed the underlying issue of FPTP, which is that if there are 4 national parties, one party could get 100% of the seats in Parliament with only 26% of the popular vote. A stretch to imagine, but it is possible under our system.

That's a broken system.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[TimG]

And PR does not make a perfect candidate for every voter, but it does introduce more views to governing, and that can only be for the good.

All those views are represented - within big tent parties. Those views don't disappear. If those views cannot get majority support within a big tent they have no relevance. All a PR system does is create an environment where the views of a tiny minority can be foisted on the majority.

A good example is Australia where the PM was forced to bring in a carbon tax by Greens with 2 seats in the senate. A move that is opposed by the majority of Australians.

If your objection to PR is anything other than "My party will lose influence" or "I just hate change", then I am not understanding you. And I would like to understand.

I would rather live with a system that periodically gives a majority to a party I really disagree with like the NDP than with a system that is hostage to narrow minded boutique parties looking to justify their existence.

[TimG]

Look at Alberta! Their main complaint over the last 50 years (until Harper) has been that Ottawa ignores their wants and needs, that the rest of Canada shits on them at the same time as they benefit from Alberta oil

And a PR system would only make that problem worse because of the distribution of population.

[Evening Star]

Molly, there are many ways to execute Proportional Representation, and many of them keep the candidates beholden to their constituents in their riding.

Could you describe such a system? I just read a little about the Dutch and Swedish systems. They still don't seem to ensure local representation in the way ours does (or should).

However, as my colleague pointed out to me, most candidates are currently beholden to their parties more than their constituents,

I agree but I see this as a problem to be overcome, not something that should be exacerbated. (That said, I can assure that Brian Masse's popularity in Windsor West has much to do with him as a local representative and community member.)

Why does nonpartisan democracy seem so much less popular than PR? It's completely constitutional and seems to actually strengthen the advantages of having a Parliament made up of local representatives. I'm actually curious. It doesn't seem to be used in many developed democracies at all. Maybe if we just greatly restricted political party funding and discouraged the level of party discipline that is currently enforced...?

[Evening Star]

(Note that Jack is in favour of PR too, and brought it up at the English debate even though PR would halve his representation in Ottawa.)

This is false, at least as far as past elections have gone. (May be true this time if the NDP continues to dominate QC.) In 2008, the NDP won 37 seats (about 12%) with 18% of the vote. In 2006, they won 29 seats (9.4%) with 17% of the vote.

[TimG]

Maybe if we just greatly restricted political party funding and discouraged the level of party discipline that is currently enforced...?

Then you simply make the corruption problem even worse (look at the US). The party system means that individuals MPs cannot be bribed with relatively small amounts of money. Independent MPs would be vulnerable. Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

No clue must be because I have more degrees then you do.

You both have terrible grammar though.

[cybercoma]

The latest Nanos is showing strong support for the Tories in every region outside of Quebec.

[snip]

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.

Has Nanos not lost all credibility yet? His methodology must be right out in left field for him to get the numbers that he does. I don't disagree that the Conservatives are well above the next party, but come on now Nik.

[cybercoma]

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!

It's not just Elizabeth May. The Bloc and Conservatives are considerably over-represented in the House. When representatives vote on bills, they're not truly representative of the will of Canadians. A small minority of people are having their values used to guide the direction of this country. That's not fair and it only partly has to do with Elizabeth May.

[icman]

Could you describe such a system? I just read a little about the Dutch and Swedish systems. They still don't seem to ensure local representation in the way ours does (or should).

Well, take any 5 contiguous ridings and combine them into one super riding. Candidates are nominated by parties or can be independent, and parties can put forward multiple candidates. You could even allow them to put forward as many canadidates as there are available seats (in this example, that's 5). Candidates are listed on the ballot with their party affiliation, as they are now. Voters vote for the candidates using any PR voting method (Single Transferable Vote comes to mind. A ranked list and point system also comes to mind). The top 5 candidates go to Ottawa for that riding.

In this system, there are no more seats in Ottawa than now, and the candidates are as beholden to the constituents in their districts as they are now - the only difference is that the district is 5 times larger.

Why does nonpartisan democracy seem so much less popular than PR? It's completely constitutional and seems to actually strengthen the advantages of having a Parliament made up of local representatives. I'm actually curious. It doesn't seem to be used in many developed democracies at all. Maybe if we just greatly restricted political party funding and discouraged the level of party discipline that is currently enforced...?

I am actually not familiar with "non-partisan democracy". Does that mean no parties?

I think parties developed as a way to consolidate power outside of Parliament into the hands of people not beholden to constituents. However, in Canada that's not really true, because all the parties have internal elections for leadership positions. Powerful folk exert their influence no matter the venue, and elections are our ONLY imperfect stopgap for that problem.

Today, though, parties allow a shortcut for the voter to understand the views of their representatives. The party platform is more or less the individual platform. In a complicated world, this simplifies the decision-making process for the voter, and allows the voter to be more easily informed on how their representative of choice is likely to represent them in Parliament.

With under 60% voter turnout to federal elections, I am not sure how removing parties would play, considering that it makes it even more difficult for the voter to inform themselves about their representative choices. It would level the playing field with regard to candidate campaign funding. But again, it would also make it harder to manage public disclosure of campaign financing (who's influencing who.)

[cybercoma]

My objection to PR is that voters representatives will be even more beholden to political parties (and thus be even less responsible to the people who elect them) than they are now.

They can't possibly be less responsible than they are now. If more than 50% of voters in a riding vote for representatives from other parties, then the elected MP refuses to respond to or answer concerns of the majority of his/her constituents because their values do not meet his political ideologies, how is that responsibility? It doesn't matter which party wins the riding; it is rarely representative of the constituents, unless it's a landslide.

[cybercoma]

I can assure that Brian Masse's popularity in Windsor West has much to do with him as a local representative and community member

That is true. He's holding a traditional Liberal stronghold that was held by Paul Martin Sr. I used to live in Windsor-West. What I hear from family back home is that people are upset with Masse for voting against helping the auto industry, but he'll still end up getting his seat. He was a fantastic city councillor and generally a great guy. I'm sure his explanation for voting against helping the auto-industry would be sound. Families need to be helped and no amount of money dumped into the industry was going to keep jobs in Windsor. Anyway, you're certainly right about this, but he also wins by a landslide in that riding, so the majority of people are supporting the mandate of the NDP.

[icman]

They can't possibly be less responsible than they are now. If more than 50% of voters in a riding vote for representatives from other parties, then the elected MP refuses to respond to or answer concerns of the majority of his/her constituents because their values do not meet his political ideologies, how is that responsibility? It doesn't matter which party wins the riding; it is rarely representative of the constituents, unless it's a landslide.

Yes, there was that prick of an MP, who it was I can't remember, who refused requests from a constituent because that constituent had a party sign for a different party on his lawn during the campaign.

I am sorry, but once you attain the position of MP, you are responsible for representing all your constituents, and helping all your constituents. Your riding is a block of people, and they voted for you in the aggregate. That principle is illustrated by the fact that voting is an anonymous exercise. As MP, you represent ALL your constituents, using your views in Parliament because your district voted you into power based on those views. But you don't get to pick and choose WHO within that district you will represent. You represent them all in the aggregate according to your advertized principles.

This should be kindergarten-level civics knowledge, but there are still lots of people who don't have a problem with MPs being selective in who they will aid within their riding. I get that people closest to the MP during campaigns and such will get more attention - that is human nature and unavoidable, even if its not strictly ethical. But to refuse service to a constituent because you think they might have voted for a different candidate? Sick and twisted.

[icman]

All those views are represented - within big tent parties. Those views don't disappear. If those views cannot get majority support within a big tent they have no relevance. All a PR system does is create an environment where the views of a tiny minority can be foisted on the majority.

A good example is Australia where the PM was forced to bring in a carbon tax by Greens with 2 seats in the senate. A move that is opposed by the majority of Australians.

Your argument suggests that we should have a single party (or no parties), as all views will be represented by that party. I'm sorry, but that is a narrow view, prejudiced against anyone who has views that differ from yours. And it's simply incorrect. The GPC, for example, has a broad, principle-based platform that covers all areas of national interest - they aren't just a bunch of enviro-freaks anymore.

And the environment is important to many people in Canada, within the "big-tent" parties and without. But which "big-tent" party is taking that on? None! They think it's the third-rail, and so are avoiding the issue. There are many issues that are important to large numbers of Canadians which don't get discussed at the national level during campaigns because the parties either don't differ on the issue, or they think its contraversial and don't want to touch it.

How did the GPA manage to FORCE the PM to implement a carbon tax with only 2 seats in the Senate? If that was so strongly against the wishes of the majority of Australians, the PM would have said no-freakin-way. A PM would never give up a broadly opposed concession to a small party to push 50/50 legislation through the Senate.

You are only characterizing the issue this way because you are one of the people who feel very strongly opposed to the notion of carbon taxes.

I would rather live with a system that periodically gives a majority to a party I really disagree with like the NDP than with a system that is hostage to narrow minded boutique parties looking to justify their existence.

So, you'd like Unions to rule the country rather than consider changes to how we manage taxes to protect future resources and human health?

[TimG]

Your argument suggests that we should have a single party (or no parties), as all views will be represented by that party.

Obviously you need two parties for competition but that is enough.

The GPC, for example, has a broad, principle-based platform that covers all areas of national interest - they aren't just a bunch of enviro-freaks anymore.

They are a single issue party no matter how they dress up their platform - all they really care about is GHGs.

A PM would never give up a broadly opposed concession to a small party to push 50/50 legislation through the Senate.

This PM will likely lose her job over it.

So, you'd like Unions to rule the country rather than consider changes to how we manage taxes to protect future resources and human health?

I am saying I can live with FPTP even if it goes against my views because the pendulum will eventually switch.

[icman]

Your argument suggests that we should have a single party (or no parties), as all views will be represented by that party.

Obviously you need two parties for competition but that is enough.

It's not obvious at all. Why have competition if all views are represented equally by both parties? Your view suggests that competition is NOT necessary. If competition is necessary, it's competition between competing views. And that implies that not all views are shared by all parties. And that implies the need for as many parties as is necessary to represent all Canadian views. New parties don't pop up because some disaffected power broker wants their own show, exacly the same as the old show with a different name. New parties pop up because the old ones don't address what's important to a substantial group of people - so those people create a new party which represents their views.

The GPC, for example, has a broad, principle-based platform that covers all areas of national interest - they aren't just a bunch of enviro-freaks anymore.

They are a single issue party no matter how they dress up their platform - all they really care about is GHGs.

It is clear you have spent NO time whatsoever to finding out more about the GPC. You really should stop trying to speak for them and what they care about. Go to their web site, and be illuminated.

A PM would never give up a broadly opposed concession to a small party to push 50/50 legislation through the Senate.

This PM will likely lose her job over it.

Please explain what happened, or put a link to a site explaining what happened. She would not have done what you say unless she believed in the carbon tax, Australians were not so unified in opposition against the carbon tax, or she had no choice. That she had no choice is not credible without a detailed explanation.

So, you'd like Unions to rule the country rather than consider changes to how we manage taxes to protect future resources and human health?

I am saying I can live with FPTP even if it goes against my views because the pendulum will eventually switch.

You are right, the pendulum will switch. But how many resources are will you waste undoing what a previous party has done so that you can erect your own edifice, only to have that torn down when the next party takes over? Wouldn't you rather take some extra time, even a couple of years if necessary, to arrive at a generally accepted forward move (and this is only on the controversial stuff), so that when action is taken, it is something that will last because most Canadians supported the compromise?

There are some moves that cannot be easily undone by the swinging of the pendulum. Look at NAFTA. We would have a very hard time getting out of it if we wanted to, and a significant number of people in Canada DO want to. Certainly it was not negotiated very advantageously for Canada, and part of that was due to the lack of consultation on the part of Mulrooney's government. Of course, they had a majority, and could do whatever they wanted, in spite of significant opposition in the voting public.

Also, your choice of words "I can live with it" suggests that there might be a more palatable option for you than FPTP. I urge you to consider the full range of PR systems (currently in practice somewhere or not) and see if one is acceptable before condemning the whole exercise.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[TimG]

It's not obvious at all. Why have competition if all views are represented equally by both parties? Your view suggests that competition is NOT necessary.

I never said all parties were equal. I said that parties had to be large enough to attrach a large group of people who do not necessarily agree on everything.

It is clear you have spent NO time whatsoever to finding out more about the GPC. You really should stop trying to speak for them and what they care about. Go to their web site, and be illuminated.

I know they have a full platform but that does not change the facts that they are a single issue party and could never compromise on that single issue. For example, all mainstream parties seem to agree that the GHGs are a pretty low priority. Is this a view the Greens could live with?

She would not have done what you say unless she believed in the carbon tax, Australians were not so unified in opposition against the carbon tax, or she had no choice.

She was pushed into by the Greens and she hoped she could force it through with minimal grumbling. She was wrong. If she had not been captive to the demands of a single issue party she probably would have let that issue slide and would not be at risk of losing her job.

You are right, the pendulum will switch. But how many resources are will you waste undoing what a previous party has done so that you can erect your own edifice, only to have that torn down when the next party takes over?

The beauty of the system is only the really dumb stuff gets fixed. The stuff that has merit - even if it was opposed by the new party - tends to stay in place. We end up with good government because parties can afford to take risks.

Also, your choice of words "I can live with it" suggests that there might be a more palatable option for you than FPTP.

No it does not. It means it is the best of all other options but I am not claiming it is perfect in every way. PR is not a system I can support as long as it leads to fringe parties getting elected and holding the balance of power. Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG

[icman]

I never said all parties were equal. I said that parties had to be large enough to attrach a large group of people who do not necessarily agree on everything.

You said that any "big-tent" party contains all views within itself and so are the only parties which are relevant, and I extrapolated that to its logical conclusion which was that all "big-tent" parties must then be equivalent, because if they all contain all views, then they all contain the same views.

I know they have a full platform but that does not change the facts that they are a single issue party and could never compromise on that single issue. For example, all mainstream parties seem to agree that the GHGs are a pretty low priority. Is this a view the Greens could live with?

Actually, I think that they could if something else came up that was more important. With regard to GHGs, the GPC is filling a gap left by all the other parties. If the GPC wasn't at the table, the issue wouldn't be discussed. Over 25% of Canada thinks this is an important issue (environmental issue polling, not GPC polling). So I disagree with you that if the 3 major parties think its a low priority issue that it is therefore low priority to Canadian. We need new voices to raise issues that the mainstream parties don't want to touch.

She was pushed into by the Greens and she hoped she could force it through with minimal grumbling. She was wrong. If she had not been captive to the demands of a single issue party she probably would have let that issue slide and would not be at risk of losing her job.

You still haven't answered my question. How did she get pushed by 2 seats into a career-ending move? I say its not credible that she got pushed. It's clear to me by some of the quotes attributed to her by the media that she believes in her move. Whether it is career-ending or not remains to be seen. A couple hundred protesters is not exactly rioting in the streets.

The beauty of the system is only the really dumb stuff gets fixed. The stuff that has merit - even if it was opposed by the new party - tends to stay in place. We end up with good government because parties can afford to take risks.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see it more as the pet-peeves of the MS parties get done and undone repeatedly, and important stuff gets pushed to the side in that struggle. In the meantime, the public is fed the line that these items are horribly important, and after overexposure, they begin to believe it too.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman