Canadian Political Polls

[jbg]

I don't believe that the Greens will split the vote. Several pollsters have commented on the fact that people park their votes with other parties between elections. That's in this thread here too. You certainly don't have to look far for the information.

In America you'd be very much right. I don't know if that holds true in Canada.

[jdobbin]

In America you'd be very much right. I don't know if that holds true in Canada.

The only time we have seen a real split vote in recent years is between Reform/Alliance and the PCs.

I see no evidence that the Greens are splitting the vote. In recent years their vote has been quite soft dropping during actual elections.

[jbg]

In America you'd be very much right. I don't know if that holds true in Canada.

The only time we have seen a real split vote in recent years is between Reform/Alliance and the PCs.

I see no evidence that the Greens are splitting the vote. In recent years their vote has been quite soft dropping during actual elections.

Thanks for reminding me. The Reform were hardly an inter-electin "parking place". They wound up imploding the PCPC.

[jdobbin]

Thanks for reminding me. The Reform were hardly an inter-electin "parking place". They wound up imploding the PCPC.

Reform was made up predominantly of disaffected PCs (Harper is an example of that). The massive defeat of the PCs gave Reform greater opportunity to solidify their base in the west. The PCs were able to recover somewhat in the east. Both parties ran a full slate of candidates. In some cases, especially in Ontario they split the vote.

The NDP and the Greens are not split off the Liberal party. It is an important distinction.

Over the years, third and fourth parties have seen their numbers go up in between elections. The term parking votes has come to the fore because the numbers have generally fallen when the writ is dropped. That has certainly happened many times to the NDP and it happened to the Greens as well.

One area that splitting votes could have undesired consequences is in Quebec. The federalist vote might be dominant in a riding but have the BQ squeak through. We'll see what happens. Some of the recent polls in that province have gone up and down like a yo-yo.

[Michael Bluth]

Reform was made up predominantly of disaffected PCs (Harper is an example of that). The massive defeat of the PCs gave Reform greater opportunity to solidify their base in the west. The PCs were able to recover somewhat in the east. Both parties ran a full slate of candidates. In some cases, especially in Ontario they split the vote.

The NDP and the Greens are not split off the Liberal party. It is an important distinction.

A distinction I can't see how you are making.

Are you denying that CCF voters were predominantly disaffected Liberals at the time it was founded?

[jbg]

Reform was made up predominantly of disaffected PCs (Harper is an example of that). The massive defeat of the PCs gave Reform greater opportunity to solidify their base in the west. The PCs were able to recover somewhat in the east. Both parties ran a full slate of candidates. In some cases, especially in Ontario they split the vote.

I think you have your date sequencing backward. Reform was founded during 1987, and the PC's didn't do badly in the 1988 election. The Reform groundswell during the 1988-3 mandate caused (along with the BQ splitoff) the PC near-wipeout in 1993. It was not a case of the PC collapse creating a vacancy in which the "disaffected PC's" could move.

The NDP and the Greens are not split off the Liberal party. It is an important distinction.

The result is similar. The Liberals are, like the old PCPC, a party without a real ideological philosphy.

Over the years, third and fourth parties have seen their numbers go up in between elections. The term parking votes has come to the fore because the numbers have generally fallen when the writ is dropped. That has certainly happened many times to the NDP and it happened to the Greens as well.

Agreed, except for the Reform, and the Bloc. Those are two huge exceptions that are the elephants in the room.

One area that splitting votes could have undesired consequences is in Quebec. The federalist vote might be dominant in a riding but have the BQ squeak through. We'll see what happens. Some of the recent polls in that province have gone up and down like a yo-yo.

Quebec, at long last, may learn the consequence of voting in large numbers for a "vote-park" party that can never form a government, and that the mainstream parties are allergic to working too closely with. Edited July 18, 2007 by jbg

[jdobbin]

I think you have your date sequencing backward. Reform was founded during 1987, and the PC's didn't do badly in the 1988 election. The Reform groundswell during the 1988-3 mandate caused (along with the BQ splitoff) the PC near-wipeout in 1993. It was not a case of the PC collapse creating a vacancy in which the "disaffected PC's" could move.

The result is similar. The Liberals are, like the old PCPC, a party without a real ideological philosphy.

Agreed, except for the Reform, and the Bloc. Those are two huge exceptions that are the elephants in the room.

Quebec, at long last, may learn the consequence of voting in large numbers for a "vote-park" party that can never form a government, and that the mainstream parties are allergic to working too closely with.

I didn't give any dates in my post save to say that the PCs were massively defeated creating an opportunity for the Reform to solidify their support. You can add post 1993 if you like as I thought it as obvious that PCs won two majorities with Mulroney. I still say it was a collapse of the PCs when, as you say, many of their MPs joined the Bloq, many of their MPs stepped down and many of their supporters in the west joined Reform.

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion that Greens, NDP and Liberals will split the vote giving the Tories their majority. I don't see evidence of it though.

Quebecers seems happy with the situation right now. The Bloq is able to take credit for massive federal spending in Quebec. The latest is the $1 billion for the Cree in the north of Quebec.

[jdobbin]

A distinction I can't see how you are making.

Are you denying that CCF voters were predominantly disaffected Liberals at the time it was founded?

Yes.

[M.Dancer]

The NDP and the Greens are not split off the Liberal party. It is an important distinction.

A distinction I can't see how you are making.

Are you denying that CCF voters were predominantly disaffected Liberals at the time it was founded?

I thought they were lukewarm communists.....

[jdobbin]

I thought they were lukewarm communists.....

Or members of the socialist parties or farmer's parties.

[jdobbin]

Not to mention members of the Progressive and Labour parties which had MPs in the House.

No mention of disaffected Liberals.

Edited July 18, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Not to mention members of the Progressive and Labour parties which had MPs in the House.

No mention of disaffected Liberals.

In your post. None at all.

Doesn't mean it's true though....

[jdobbin]

In your post. None at all.

Doesn't mean it's true though....

Citations, proof?

[Michael Bluth]

Citations, proof?

Why would I do something you refuse to do?

[jdobbin]

Why would I do something you refuse to do?

Oh come on. Embarrass me. I say anyone who thinks the CCF was made up of predominantly disaffected Liberals is a loon, doesn't know history and and is a joke. I don't need a link for it all. It's absolutely true.

I certainly didn't make the claim about the CCF so I certainly don't have to go find the information for you. The burden of proof is on you to show you are absolutely certain that the CCF was made up of disaffected Liberals. Quite frankly, you have everyone laughing at the absurdness of the statement around here.

I'll just have to leave you to your beliefs.

Edited July 18, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Oh come on. Embarrass me. I say anyone who thinks the CCF was made up of predominantly disaffected Liberals is a loon, doesn't know history and and is a joke. I don't need a link for it all. It's absolutely true.

I certainly didn't make the claim about the CCF so I certainly don't have to go find the information for you. The burden of proof is on you to show you are absolutely certain that the CCF was made up of disaffected Liberals. Quite frankly, you have everyone laughing at the absurdness of the statement around here.

I'll just have to leave you to your beliefs.

Fair enough, predominantly was an inappropriate word. Change that to many. And please don't insult me. It's against the rules and quite unfair.

Among the eight MPs present in the meeting at William Irvine's office that lead to the founding of the CCF.

Humphrey Mitchell. (Quote refers to his 1931 by-election run.)

The Liberals, in opposition having lost the previous year's general election did not run a candidate against Mitchell in order to avoid dividing the anti-Conservative vote. Given future events, it is also possible the Liberals believed that Mitchell was would support the Liberal Party unofficially if elected.

AA Heaps and JS Woodsworth.

The Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King was elected with a minority government. Heaps and Woodsworth agreed to support the Liberals in exchange for the government creating Canada's first old age pension

Split hairs all you want, but please refrain from insulting me in doing so.

[jdobbin]

Split hairs all you want, but please refrain from insulting me in doing so.

These were not not Liberals nor were they ever Liberals. There are no hairs to split. You were wrong.

[Michael Bluth]

These were not not Liberals nor were they ever Liberals. There are no hairs to split. You were wrong.

Why ignore the fact you insulted me? Are you above the rules of the board.

They had a connection to the Liberal party and were able to work with them. Are you denying that?

[jdobbin]

Why ignore the fact you insulted me? Are you above the rules of the board.

They had a connection to the Liberal party and were able to work with them. Are you denying that?

I am denying they were predominantly Liberals.

And if you feel the insult was for you, report me. Please stop whining. I said anyone who believed they were Liberals was a loon. Do you believe they were Liberals? Were they ever Liberals?

Does this mean that the NDP who supported the Tories on some bills are Conservatives? Yeesh.

[Michael Bluth]

Does this mean that the NDP who supported the Tories on some bills are Conservatives? Yeesh.

Bev Desjarlais? She works for a Conservative Minister, but I guess that doesn't make her a Conservative...

[jdobbin]

Bev Desjarlais? She works for a Conservative Minister, but I guess that doesn't make her a Conservative...

I know her son. She still carries an NDP membership. And I was the one that posted a thread on how she was treated by Layton way, way back.

Ed Broadbent once accepted a position from the Liberal government. He never stopped being an NDP.

Your argument is weak.

The CCF was never made up of predominantly disaffected Liberals no matter what type of contortions you make.

[Michael Bluth]

Your argument is weak.

The CCF was never made up of predominantly disaffected Liberals no matter what type of contortions you make.

I already said predominantly was an incorrect word. Do you feel better harping on the same word even after that?

Please stop with the insulting tone of voice. Yes I have reported you.

You win sir. You have bullied me off your threads. Pat yourself on the back.

[jdobbin]

I already said predominantly was an incorrect word. Do you feel better harping on the same word even after that?

Please stop with the insulting tone of voice. Yes I have reported you.

You win sir. You have bullied me off your threads. Pat yourself on the back.

Now, it is an insulting tone. What tone are you referring to? The one where I said you were wrong that the CCF was made up disaffected Liberals?

I await to hear from the moderators.

[jbg]

I didn't give any dates in my post save to say that the PCs were massively defeated creating an opportunity for the Reform to solidify their support. You can add post 1993 if you like as I thought it as obvious that PCs won two majorities with Mulroney. I still say it was a collapse of the PCs when, as you say, many of their MPs joined the Bloq, many of their MPs stepped down and many of their supporters in the west joined Reform.

That still implies that it was the "massive defeat" of the PCPC that let the Reform Party in, when it was the other way around.

[jdobbin]

That still implies that it was the "massive defeat" of the PCPC that let the Reform Party in, when it was the other way around.

The Reform solidified their support with the massive defeat. Thereafter, the PCs and Reform tried to battle it out in all ridings.