Federal Election Polls

[Boges]

Inb4 "Abacus has a flawed formula." and FPTP is antidemocratic.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Boges

[jacee]

-canadians-trust-in-elections-low-before-2015-federal-vote-/

However the current survey reveals that Canadians' trust in elections is relatively weak.

Only one in five Canadians reported strong trust in elections.Worse, nearly 70 per cent said they were either very or somewhat concerned that political parties might try to "manipulate the outcome of future elections through illegal activities."

... what happens when citizens stop seeing elections themselves as a chance to make things right?

The blame for this corroded sentiment lies in large part with the 2011 campaign and the lingering stories of misdeeds committed during that election. To recap:

- Michael Sona, has been sent to jail "robocalls." Conservatives keep rivals' supporters away from the voting booths

- Peter Penashue, was forced to resign over election misspending

Conservative MP Ted Opitz, voting irregularities.

- Peterborough MP Dean Del Mastro (now resigned) and his spending

- Conservative Party of Canada "in-and-out scandal."

- "fair elections act"

- orgies of political advertising

I think Canadians are feeling helpless because the election machine will be distorted in nefarious ways out of our control.

The problem is that the first past the post system isn't sophisticated enough to withstand today's technologies that can predict precisely and identify target populations that can sway results, and can easily implement nefarious robocalls to again sway results.

When proportionate representation is implemented, every vote for every party will count toward representation in the House, and election fraud won't be as easy nor as prevalent.

FPTP is badly outdated.

Canadians are noticing and are losing faith in the system as our democracy no longer represents the will of the people.

.

[Michael Hardner]

When proportionate representation is implemented, every vote for every party will count toward representation in the House, and election fraud won't be as easy nor as prevalent.

FPTP is badly outdated.

Canadians are noticing and are losing faith in the system as our democracy no longer represents the will of the people.

.

PR shouldn't be implemented. It's too radical a change, and may not even address the ills that people suggest it would. Democracy itself is old too, is that a criticism ?

Also, there's some kind of implication here that creating PR, ie. giving the 15%-20% or so who regularly vote NDP more power (ie. the balance of power) will be good for democracy, even though the 30%-35% who regularly vote Conservative would have a reduced chance of having power in government.

I think there would be a centre-right backlash that would eventually settle out with two parties, and the left being shut out by a centre-right and farther-right coalition.

[Keepitsimple]

PR shouldn't be implemented. It's too radical a change, and may not even address the ills that people suggest it would. Democracy itself is old too, is that a criticism ?

Also, there's some kind of implication here that creating PR, ie. giving the 15%-20% or so who regularly vote NDP more power (ie. the balance of power) will be good for democracy, even though the 30%-35% who regularly vote Conservative would have a reduced chance of having power in government.

I think there would be a centre-right backlash that would eventually settle out with two parties, and the left being shut out by a centre-right and farther-right coalition.

It's called "be careful what you wish for" AKA the "Law of Unintended Consequences". Canada has had a history of being one of the most stable, prosperous and best governed countries in the world. I can't really think of any other country that I'd want to live - and when you step back from all the partisan pettiness - it doesn't really matter in the long run whether it's a Liberal or Conservative government. Both parties habitually cleave to the Center (by Canadian standards) - because that's where Canadians are. The "times" dictate whether that's a little to the Right or a little to the Left. The wild-card can be the leader - they can be a plus - or a minus. We saw that here in Ontario where a thoroughly incompetent Hudak lost a very winnable election. To perhaps a lesser extent, the Federal Liberals failed to recapture their vote share with uninspiring leaders in Martin, Dion and Ignatieff.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Ash74]

Harper now in front.

The only poll that matters is on election day. In Ontario the Liberals formed a majority that nobody saw coming. (God help us)

In B.C. everybody had the N.D.P winning and they went Liberal.

PR is great if you have no desire to elect a person. Where I live it was very much the person and not the party that was voted in. Hence way I do not like PR.

FPTP is ugly but I have yet to see a better solution.

Wynne is going to add another tax that will anger the voters and push them to the Conservatives again out of revenge.

That is my guess what will happen in the next Federal election.

[eyeball]

PR shouldn't be implemented. It's too radical a change, and may not even address the ills that people suggest it would. Democracy itself is old too, is that a criticism ?

It's a simple statement of fact. The criticism is how stubborn the refusal to reform it is to keep up with the times. The reasons for not changing the system seem no less archaic than the system itself.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a simple statement of fact. The criticism is how stubborn the refusal to reform it is to keep up with the times. The reasons for not changing the system seem no less archaic than the system itself.

There is another thread on PR now.

[eyeball]

PR is great if you have no desire to elect a person.

Yes, that worked out just great for the 60% or more who had no desire to elect Harper.

[jacee]

PR shouldn't be implemented. It's too radical a change, and may not even address the ills that people suggest it would.

Yes it will if all MP's are accountable to a constituency.

Democracy itself is old too, is that a criticism ?

No that's just fearmongering, Michael. First past the post is only one form of democracy, very outdated and not common anymore for that reason. Needs an update to continue being a functioning democracy.

PR isn't "radical" at all. It can be implemented without changing anything at all except adjusting the numerical representation in the House to reflect the popular vote.

Also, there's some kind of implication here that creating PR, ie. giving the 15%-20% or so who regularly vote NDP more power (ie. the balance of power) will be good for democracy, even though the 30%-35% who regularly vote Conservative would have a reduced chance of having power in government.

The consideration of its effect on party political power must always be secondary to consideration of good representation for the people - the true nature of democracy.

In addition to FPTP results, in Proportionate Representation, party representation in the house must reflect the overall proportion of the popular vote for each party.

It is necessary to avoid the current distortion of democracy: Every vote counts toward representation in the House, whether your candidate wins FPTP or not.

I think there would be a centre-right backlash that would eventually settle out with two parties, and the left being shut out by a centre-right and farther-right coalition.

One never avoids change because of a potential backlash. That's the equivalent of always giving in to a child's tantrums so they continue forever.

You prepare in advance to deal with the backlashes as they come.

I think you're off base though. PR generally doesn't result in more concentration in fewer parties.

.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacee

[Ash74]

Yes, that worked out just great for the 60% or more who had no desire to elect Harper.

Or the same amount that did not want Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau.etc,etc,etc

Not saying it is pretty I just think it is the best system we could have.

[Michael Hardner]

I'll reply in the PR thread jacee.

[jacee]

Or the same amount that did not want Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau.etc,etc,etc

Not saying it is pretty I just think it is the best system we could have.

Other colonial countries that used to have FPTP have upgraded to PR. It might be worth checking out why, considering that ...

nearly 70 per cent said they were either very or somewhat concerned that political parties might try to "manipulate the outcome of future elections through illegal activities."

Party people typically want FPTP to continue, because they know how to manipulate it.

.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

Other colonial countries that used to have FPTP have upgraded to PR. It might be worth checking out why, considering that ...

Overall, Canada is one of the most successful of such countries. I'm not sure I'd call the change an upgrade, given that reality.

[Michael Hardner]

Other colonial countries that used to have FPTP have upgraded to PR.

.

Overall, Canada is one of the most successful of such countries. I'm not sure I'd call the change an upgrade, given that reality.

Can we please move it to the PR thread ?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/9006-ontario-referendum-proportional-representation/page-6#entry1021262

[Smallc]

That's a thread in provincial politics. It's not any more appropriate than this particular thread...less so in fact.

[eyeball]

Could we please have a vote?

[Michael Hardner]

That's a thread in provincial politics. It's not any more appropriate than this particular thread...less so in fact.

Fine then...

Let's do one in Federal Politics but this is about election polls for this election. PR is a longstanding topic that has no impact on the coming election.

[eyeball]

Democracy is an issue that touches many issues and knows no boundaries.

[Smallc]

That would be acceptable.

[Smallc]

You putting money on that?

At this point, the election is too close to call, though if I were to bet, I'd probably bet on a Conservative minority. At this point though, this far out, it could be anything from a Liberal majority to a Conservative one.

[overthere]

Party people typically want FPTP to continue, because they know how to manipulate it.

.

The proponents of PR are those that stand to benefit from it, including those that will never form a govt or have any influence in govt without PR.

FPTP is supported by those who have a realistic chance of forming govt.

In Canada, that means NDP and Green support PR, Liberal and Cons support FPTP.

It is all simply opportunism, all of it by all of them.

[jbg]

Could we please have a vote?

Proportional or one vote for each?

[jacee]

The proponents of PR are those that stand to benefit from it, including those that will never form a govt or have any influence in govt without PR.

FPTP is supported by those who have a realistic chance of forming govt.

In Canada, that means NDP and Green support PR, Liberal and Cons support FPTP.

It is all simply opportunism, all of it by all of them.

Yes it is. PR was never an iniative of political parties. It came from people, and political parties finally had to pay attention.

Someone said earlier that Trudeau and Harper have also made mention of it. To me that doesn't mean they support it: It means people are demanding they consider it so they're putting out window dressing that might help them get elected.

.

Edited January 5, 2015 by jacee

[overthere]

jacee, on 04 Jan 2015 - 2:35 PM, said:

Other colonial countries that used to have FPTP have upgraded to PR. It might be worth checking out why, considering that ...

Overall, Canada is one of the most successful of such countries. I'm not sure I'd call the change an upgrade, given that reality.

And other countries have not 'upgraded' to PR.

They include Canada, USA, the United Kingdom and the largest and most remarkable democracy in the world: India.

They are all strong countries with healthy democracies, wouldn't you agree?

[overthere]

Yes it is. PR was never an iniative of political parties. It came from people, and political parties finally had to pay attention.

Someone said earlier that Trudeau and Harper have also made mention of it. To me that doesn't mean they support it: It means people are demanding they consider it so they're putting out window dressing that might help them get elected.

.

No, that is just wishful thinking.

Of course PR is an initiaitive of political parties- but only when it suits them.

I once reviewed the national and provincial platforms of the NDP across Canada. It was when there were NDP govts in SK and MB, and the federal party was languishing in distant third place as it has historically.

In all the larger provinces and federally the NDP had PR as a party policy. It was policy in SK because it would have enhanced their seat count. It was policy federally because it would not enhance their seat count. It was not policy in MB because it would hurt their seat count. Funny how that works.

I heard Elizabeth May on the radio a couple of weeks ago enthusiastically endorsing PR.

I don't know where or how you generated the fantasy that political parties do not support PR.