Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Is that really the case though? For the first time since Joe Clark, Canada now has a minority government in Ottawa, which suggests that there was no overwhelming majority and no spectacular failure. Infact, the biggest (percentage wise) was the NDP, who increased their seat count by over 50% in the 2006 election, and they aren't even considered a threat when compared to the Reds and Blues.
I think the idea of a spectacular upset is more appropriate for an election in Alberta, but not necessarily Canada. All things considered, if the Libs came out on top yesterday in Alberta, then yes - that would be a spectacular victory (or a tremendous deathblow to some).
|
The failure of the Martin Liberals was more to do with a looooooooooooooong tradition of abuse that many voters finally had enough of, coupled with the reunification of the right.
Point is, people who feel they are being represented well by their representative are more likely to stick with them. Even if they have some concerns, the opposition still needs to prove that they are undeniably the better alternative.
This election was a show of that. The PCs have slipped lately, especially in Calgary/Southern Alberta, but nobody revealed themselves to be a superior alternative. Thus, the PC's retained their advantage in the South, and Stelmach's popularity in rural areas and Edmonton decimated the opposition in the North. Stelmach became the better alternative to the Liberal and NDP incumbants. Taft et al failed to do the same here.