ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 Maybe, but the platform says a committee will be convened to study all forms of reform, including PR, and make recommendations. So, PR isn't out of the question. I hope electoral reform happens, and I hope we're never again in a situation where 30% of the population overrides the other 70%.I'm with you. If Trudeau wins, we need to hold his feet to the fire. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 As the dominant centre-left party, the LPC would be the ones with the most to lose if we had PR. A lot of their support would bleed to the other centre-left parties. I agree with Tom Mulcair that Justin Trudeau only cares about Justin Trudeau so while I commend your optimism I don't see that ever happening. I'm not sure that the LPC has the most to lose with PR. It depends on their level of popular support and they've had 10 years in the weeds to see that they won't always be on top. They would probably gain most from AV and that's why Trudeau was talking it up. But I think they could see PR as a win. Don't give up - we need more optimists. If you haven't already, join Fair Vote Canada and help push this through. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
BC_chick Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 And what, Mulcasir doesn't care about his own fortunes? And the narrative that the Liberals would die seems very self serving to me, more than a bit an exercise in wishful thinking. The Liberals mastered campaigning from the Left decades before the CCF even existed. If the NDP return to historical levels of support, the best they can hope in an alternative electoral system is that they play king maker. I see no reason to see centrist voters bleeding to the NDP. And the political right will adapt too, with social conservatives and Libertarians potentially breaking off to form potential partners for a Tory government. II can well imagine Canada having a right center and left center party like Germany with smaller parties ready to serve as coalition partners. I just don't think the Left center party will be the NDP. I'm speaking historically when I say the LPC will have the most to lose. 2011 was a game-changer in Canadian politics and for a bit 2015 it looked as though we were headed for another historical moment, but quickly we are right back to the same LPC/CPC rinse, repeat that has always been. NDP would gain a lot from PR because their support would no longer be a flash in the pan. The Greens would gain the most without a doubt because a lot more people would vote for them if their vote actually counted for something. Nobody would had a majority government with 38% of the vote so both the CPC and LPC lose, but the LPC more so because they have more competition for the centre-left vote. LPC has absolutely nothing to gain by changing the system. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 I'm not sure that the LPC has the most to lose with PR. It depends on their level of popular support and they've had 10 years in the weeds to see that they won't always be on top. They would probably gain most from AV and that's why Trudeau was talking it up. But I think they could see PR as a win. Don't give up - we need more optimists. If you haven't already, join Fair Vote Canada and help push this through. I hadn't joined, but thank you for telling me about them. I just checked them out and I plan on getting more involved. I'm so sick of strategic voting and the LPC/CPC repetition. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 I hadn't joined, but thank you for telling me about them. I just checked them out and I plan on getting more involved. I'm so sick of strategic voting and the LPC/CPC repetition.Sweet. Bring a friend. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 I'm speaking historically when I say the LPC will have the most to lose. 2011 was a game-changer in Canadian politics and for a bit 2015 it looked as though we were headed for another historical moment, but quickly we are right back to the same LPC/CPC rinse, repeat that has always been. NDP would gain a lot from PR because their support would no longer be a flash in the pan. The Greens would gain the most without a doubt because a lot more people would vote for them if their vote actually counted for something. Nobody would had a majority government with 38% of the vote so both the CPC and LPC lose, but the LPC more so because they have more competition for the centre-left vote. LPC has absolutely nothing to gain by changing the system. This seems to invoke the same flawed thinking that the Tories used; that voters are either at least marginally right or marginally let of center. It's a view I do not share. I think most voters have only vague ideological commitments. I think the Liberals know that any alternative voting system, even IRV, is going to make majorities much rarer, but I think they're calculating that they will still be first choice of a significant number of voters, and that the NDP will not magically turn into a centrist party. In fact I'd say if the NDP total ends up in the 60 to 80 range, the NDP's experiment with a Liberal leader and platform is going to come to an end, and they'll probably end up doing what Labour is doing in Britain and seeing further to the left. I think the Orange Crush was a blip, and the NDP will be a long time waiting to return to the levela of aupport they enjoyed in 2011. But thaf is not to say they won't be important. The Liberals are going to need their support should they firm the next government, and if the electoral system for change, that might become a semi permanent arrangement. Quote
eyeball Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 LPC has absolutely nothing to gain by changing the system. They'll have as much to lose when strategic voters turn their attention to them. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
ToadBrother Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 They'll have as much to lose when strategic voters turn their attention to them. Exactly. In four years, maybe it will be Anybody But Trudeau. Quote
dialamah Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 I know its barely possible that a Liberal government will implement an electoral reform, based on what would be most fair for Canadians. Heresy to even suggest a political party might take action that may not benefit them .... What makes me put forth this outrageous suggestion? Trudeau exhorting young people to vote, even if they don't vote Liberal, just get out and vote, combined with his youth advocacy involvement prior to becoming a politician. Yeah, call me naive and gullible. Quote
eyeball Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 Strategic voters will also learn, adapt and get better at what they do. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
BC_chick Posted October 10, 2015 Report Posted October 10, 2015 This seems to invoke the same flawed thinking that the Tories used; that voters are either at least marginally right or marginally let of center. It's a view I do not share. I think most voters have only vague ideological commitments. I think the Liberals know that any alternative voting system, even IRV, is going to make majorities much rarer, but I think they're calculating that they will still be first choice of a significant number of voters, and that the NDP will not magically turn into a centrist party. In fact I'd say if the NDP total ends up in the 60 to 80 range, the NDP's experiment with a Liberal leader and platform is going to come to an end, and they'll probably end up doing what Labour is doing in Britain and seeing further to the left. I think the Orange Crush was a blip, and the NDP will be a long time waiting to return to the levela of aupport they enjoyed in 2011. But thaf is not to say they won't be important. The Liberals are going to need their support should they firm the next government, and if the electoral system for change, that might become a semi permanent arrangement. You also believe that the niqab issue sank Mulcair, but I think it was more than that because the support went to the LPC who had the exact same stance. I really think that Canadians are so used to the devils that they know (LPC/CPC) that the minute Mulcair became vulnerable they jumped ship. Orange Wave is only a blip in hindsight. Even two weeks ago the NDP was on its way to possibly forming government so they didn't have to be a flash in the pan. Lastly, no, I don't think people are right/left - that's not what I said. I said there are 3 centre-left parties and only one Conservative. I've taken every possible online quiz during this election to see which party most represents my views and I'm 85%-90% in line with GP, NDP and LPC and around 5% in line with the CPC. The platforms of the 3 parties are very similar but there is only one CPC. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Canadians like FPTP and don't like coalitions. I'd say if they actually think about such matters more than one moment a year, I'd be generous but that is how it is. And that dictates binary choices - between mediocre and terrible. No nuance is allowed in a Canadian federal election. If you want to get rid of Harper, vote Liberal unless you know a third party has a real chance in your riding. Edited October 11, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote ‘How small we make our worlds. Gather them in, tighten them up into little castles of fear.’
Bonam Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) The whole strategic voting thing gets trotted out just about every election. And then is always promptly forgotten afterwards. Reality is it's a minor issue. For one, only a relatively small number of people end up voting "strategically" - many are committed to vote for one party or another, many others vote on their "principles" for the party they most believe in, and many others vote based on the local candidates in their riding. For another, election polls are somewhat reliable on a national scale where the sample sizes are large but have huge margins of error in individual ridings, making the information that people base their "strategic" votes on highly uncertain except in ridings where the outcome of the race is a foregone conclusion anyway, and the small % of strategic voters will make no difference. As for all the people decrying Harper for being "anti-democratic"... one would think that such people would realize the beneficial long-term effects on democracy of having 3-5 viable parties rather than just 2. The US system of two deeply entrenched parties with no possibility of another playing any significant role is deeply problematic and need not be emulated in Canada. "Vote splitting" has had adverse effects on both right-leaning and left-leaning parties over the decades and will continue to do so in the future, because Canada's political arena is dynamic enough for these things to change, and that is a very good thing. Edited October 11, 2015 by Bonam Quote
dialamah Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 What if 30% of the population planned to vote strategically? Could 80,000 targeted votes sway an election? Quote
drummindiver Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Information funded by the public is owned by the public. Are you trying to argue that the government owns the public's funds? The SCC rules it does. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084 Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Oh so now you're all hot to trot out the SCC? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
drummindiver Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Oh so now you're all hot to trot out the SCC? lol dude, you and your mentor are the ones always on about them. I thought you would appreciate their pov on this? Again, I guess you only care when they agree with you. Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Me and my what? So you do subscribe to the belief that the government own's the public's money - that's kind of funny because the ruling in the court case you cited sure doesn't do that and it also flies in the face of a rather core tenet of conservatism that the public own's the public's money. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
ReeferMadness Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 What if 30% of the population planned to vote strategically? Could 80,000 targeted votes sway an election? If it's the right 80,000, absolutely. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Another strategic voting website (and aptly named) anyonebutharper.net. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Great link ReeferMadness. What a big difference strategic voting will make. Lets do it. Canada Election 2015 If the election were held today, these are the projected seat counts based on the latest polls. Conservative120 Liberal134 NDP80 Green1 Bloc Québecois3 Independen0 Do you want a change of government in the 2015 Canadian election? Vote for the strongest candidate in your riding who isn't a member of the current governing party. If all non-conservatives voted this way, the seat counts would be: Conservative39 Liberal186 NDP107 Green1 Bloc Québecois3 Independent2 Edited October 11, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
waldo Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Another strategic voting website (and aptly named) anyonebutharper.net. open source, no less... put together over the last month: Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Great link ReeferMadness. What a big difference strategic voting will make. Lets do it.---SNIP---Where does the assumption come from that all strategic voters are shooting for a Liberal majority? That's proven to be just as undesirable as any Conservative majority in my estimation. Edited October 12, 2015 by Charles Anthony [---SNIP---] Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Where does the assumption come from that all strategic voters are shooting for a Liberal majority? That's proven to be just as undesirable as any Conservative majority in my estimation. . We need a stable good government. A majority is good if it is a good government. Chretien's majority worked well for Canada to eliminate the deficit eventually and make an economic sound Canada. Mulroney majority was good for Canada too to pass Free Trade. Majority is only a bad thing if there is an evil government with hidden agenda who will abuse its majority to legislate morality or cover up scandals and corruptions and especially when they have contemptible values and divisive based on race and religion. Those are not values either Trudeau or Mulcair believe in. Quote
waldo Posted October 11, 2015 Report Posted October 11, 2015 Where does the assumption come from that all strategic voters are shooting for a Liberal majority? That's proven to be just as undesirable as any Conservative majority in my estimation. that shouldn't be the impression formed... the intent is to vote for the strongest "Anyone But Conservative" representation within a respective riding, regardless of party... 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.