2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh look who's got a light saber, make that two, a blue one and a red one, and when you jam em together you get . . . PURPLE!!!

Bobba Fett is a republican though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bobba Fett is whatever he wants to be

[spotthefan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I see...so its semantics we are going to quibble over.

OK then....lemme re-phrase. For 3 consecutive elections the Canadian voters have voted the Tories in plurality to govern the country.

Actually the majority of voters voted against a Conservative candidate in the last election. This website shows a good breakdown.

Seat Breakdown (2008 election) (154 needed for a majority)

C - 143
L - 77
B - 49
N - 37
I - 2

Vote Breakdown (2008 election)

C - 37.6%
L - 26.2%
N - 18.2%
B - 10%
G - 6.8%
O - 1.2

o = Other

Now based on their vote % this is how many seats it would translate into if we had proportional representation and the difference in ()

C - 116 (-27)
L - 81 (+4)
N - 56 (+19)
B - 31 (-18)
G - 21 (+21)
O - 4

So the Greens and NDP are most to gain from election reform, while Conservatives and Bloc have least to gain.


Then you through in only 58.8% of Canadians voted.

37.6% of 58.8% = ~ 22% people voted Conservative. I would hardly say any party was given a mandate to lead this country.

Don't be fooled by what Stephen Harper has to say, a coalition is very much democratic and a part of our parliamentary system.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by spotthefan

Don't be fooled by what Stephen Harper has to say, a coalition is very much democratic and a part of our parliamentary system.

That depends on the coalition though. Last time the Liberals and NDP attempted to form a coalition government and overthrow the Conservatives, they still had fewer seats combined than the CPC did. Had they been allowed to form the government, then that would be the very definition of undemocratic. Therefore, Harper was correct when he said that they were attempting to circumvent the Canadian democratic process.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by spotthefan

Actually the majority of voters voted against a Conservative candidate in the last election. This website shows a good breakdown.




Then you through in only 58.8% of Canadians voted.

37.6% of 58.8% = ~ 22% people voted Conservative. I would hardly say any party was given a mandate to lead this country.

Sigh. One party won more seats than any other party and therefore was mandated to govern. Period. Way it has always been in Canada except for once 120 years ago (that lasted any amount of time anyways)IIRC.

People don't vote to not elect a Gov't they vote for who they wish to run the damn country. And the % of canadians that voted is completely irrelevant....but an amazing spin on things there at the end.

Don't be fooled by what Stephen Harper has to say, a coalition is very much democratic and a part of our parliamentary system.

Yeah...uhhh...no it isn't. Not when the leader who stood/stands to become PM specifically stated before the election they would not form a coalition and even moreso when a seperatist party is needed to pull it off.

And thanks for the heads up but I'm really not "fooled" by anyone, I actually have the ability to think for myself.

[mykalberta]

Why are the debates so early? I thought last election they started at 6. Its really hard to get home by 5 to watch it.

I hope the moderator in the French debate actually moderates and forces them to answer the asked questions.

[MarchHare]

Sigh. One party won more seats than any other party and therefore was mandated to govern. Period.

What are your thoughts on Israel's current parliament in which Benjamin Netanyahu is PM of a coalition government despite his Likud party finishing in second place behind Kadima? Does Netanyahu have a mandate to govern even though his party didn't receive the most votes nor the most seats in the election?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why are the debates so early? I thought last election they started at 6. Its really hard to get home by 5 to watch it.

I hope the moderator in the French debate actually moderates and forces them to answer the asked questions.

I could be wrong for sure, but I think that the French debate is at 6pm.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sigh. One party won more seats than any other party and therefore was mandated to govern. Period. Way it has always been in Canada except for once 120 years ago (that lasted any amount of time anyways)IIRC.

People don't vote to not elect a Gov't they vote for who they wish to run the damn country. And the % of canadians that voted is completely irrelevant....but an amazing spin on things there at the end.





Yeah...uhhh...no it isn't. Not when the leader who stood/stands to become PM specifically stated before the election they would not form a coalition and even moreso when a seperatist party is needed to pull it off.

And thanks for the heads up but I'm really not "fooled" by anyone, I actually have the ability to think for myself.

The problem is that in a governing system like ours, it is democratic to have multiple parties form a government. While it's somewhat unusual in Canada, in Israel they usually have multiple parties form a government, and in England it does happen as well.

Similarly, the two Right wing parties formed a coalition in order to get into power even though they did not have much in common (social conservatives vs economic conservatives)

It's one of those "it's okay for me to do, but you can't do that" situations. If the NDP and Liberals had enough seats to form a majority and decided to work together, then they would be just following the example of the CA and PC's did by merging to get things done. Nevermind the coalition that the Conservatives tried to enter in 04.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What are your thoughts on Israel's current parliament in which Benjamin Netanyahu is PM of a coalition government despite his Likud party finishing in second place behind Kadima? Does Netanyahu have a mandate to govern even though his party didn't receive the most votes nor the most seats in the election?

Did he say (pointedly and specifically) before the election he would not form a coalition with the party he did? Is he using a seperatist party who wants to break up Israel to achieve this goal?

You see...I dont know because I dont follow Israeli politics that closely, so an answer to those questions would help.

[CaptainCrunch]

The French debate is on at 6 pm.

I hope they have a better english translator then the french translator they had last night.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Did he say (pointedly and specifically) before the election he would not form a coalition with the party he did? Is he using a seperatist party who wants to break up Israel to achieve this goal?

You see...I dont know because I dont follow Israeli politics that closely, so an answer to those questions would help.

Not to mention that Israel has over 20 federal parties and has been governed by Coalitions since the day it was born.

Nothing like comparing apples to bananas to prove a point, though.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The problem is that in a governing system like ours, it is democratic to have multiple parties form a government. While it's somewhat unusual in Canada, in Israel they usually have multiple parties form a government, and in England it does happen as well.

Not when there was specific information given to the voters that they woud NOT do that. If Dion or Ignatieff were to say they were open to the idea, then yes it would legitimate. Since both have said they would refuse to entertain such an idea, its isnt. People very well may have not voted for the NDP or the Liberals knowing they would use a seperatist party to steal away power.

Similarly, the two Right wing parties formed a coalition in order to get into power even though they did not have much in common (social conservatives vs economic conservatives)

And then ran under one banner...and it isnt even close to getting in bed with a seperatist party.....let's be real here.

It's one of those "it's okay for me to do, but you can't do that" situations. If the NDP and Liberals had enough seats to form a majority and decided to work together, then they would be just following the example of the CA and PC's did by merging to get things done. Nevermind the coalition that the Conservatives tried to enter in 04.

If the Libs and the Dippers together can do it without the Bloc, I would agree as I have stated already.

And since there was no coalition government in 04, its moot.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not to mention that Israel has over 20 federal parties and has been governed by Coalitions since the day it was born.

Nothing like comparing apples to bananas to prove a point, though.

It's all the left has to go on at this point....which is either a strategic fault of the leadership and those who run campaigns, or the fact the CPC can hammer them on real policy questions.

[spotthefan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sigh. One party won more seats than any other party and therefore was mandated to govern. Period. Way it has always been in Canada except for once 120 years ago (that lasted any amount of time anyways)IIRC.

The "except that one time" exception is how parliamentary democracy is suppose to work.

Originally Posted by transplant99

People don't vote to not elect a Gov't they vote for who they wish to run the damn country. And the % of canadians that voted is completely irrelevant....but an amazing spin on things there at the end.

When you vote you are choosing a candidate (who may or may not be apart of a party) that best represents your constituency, and may be part of the faction that governs. But in that vote I AM saying who shouldn't be part of the government...that is why I chose the person I did. And people do vote strategically so that one person does not win a riding, it was a strategy in the last election.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yeah...uhhh...no it isn't. Not when the leader who stood/stands to become PM specifically stated before the election they would not form a coalition and even moreso when a seperatist party is needed to pull it off.

So by this logic, the suggestion Stephen Harper sent to the Governor General in 2004 was undemocratic due to the fact that the 99 Conservatives and 19 NDP did not add up to more seats than the Liberal number of seats. Or does that not count because the Bloc was apart of that deal...or is that making deals with separatists?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not when there was specific information given to the voters that they woud NOT do that. If Dion or Ignatieff were to say they were open to the idea, then yes it would legitimate. Since both have said they would refuse to entertain such an idea, its isnt. People very well may have not voted for the NDP or the Liberals knowing they would use a seperatist party to steal away power.

I can't argue that point. You are right. However, the conservatives have been polling just under majority status before during and after Dion's coalition so people seem to be fine with how things went. I would be fine with a coalition if there was enough seats between the NDP and Liberals to make a majority. If they need even one Bloc seat, then I would want the conservatives to continue their minority.

And then ran under one banner...and it isnt even close to getting in bed with a seperatist party.....let's be real here.

Yes, but they were two fringe parties on par with the NDP, and decided to combine their forces to make them have a higher voting pool even though there are significant differences between the two groups. The Liberals and NDP are actually closer in terms of ideologies than the two conservative parties were. The conservatives were more than willing to do that very thing back in 04. Semantics about it not actually being written in the letter aside, the only possible thing that letter illustrates is a coalition of the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc back in 04. I thought it was a bad idea back then to include the bloc back then, and I think it is now.

If the Libs and the Dippers together can do it without the Bloc, I would agree as I have stated already.

And since there was no coalition government in 04, its moot.

I think we're actually of the same opinion despite liking different parties. Go figure.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by spotthefan

So by this logic, the suggestion Stephen Harper sent to the Governor General in 2004 was undemocratic due to the fact that the 99 Conservatives and 19 NDP did not add up to more seats than the Liberal number of seats. Or does that not count because the Bloc was apart of that deal...or is that making deals with separatists?

Asking the Governor General to consider all of her options before dissolving parliament does not constitute the Conservatives forming a coalition. If this were not the case, you might have a point.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Did he say (pointedly and specifically) before the election he would not form a coalition with the party he did? Is he using a seperatist party who wants to break up Israel to achieve this goal?

You see...I dont know because I dont follow Israeli politics that closely, so an answer to those questions would help.

Sorry, I don't follow Israeli politics either, so I'm not sure what promises (if any) Netanyahu made. Nonetheless, the fact remains that he is Israel's PM despite his party having won fewer seats than another.

Also, do you recall Peter MacKay in 2003 promising (pointedly and specifically) that he would not merge the Progressive Conservatives with the Canadian Alliance Party if he was chosen as the PC leader? He, of course, did exactly what he said he wouldn't do less than a year later. Does it impact your opinion of the CPC because one of the leaders once promised that he would never form a coalition with the other?

[spotthefan]

I don't disagree as well. I was not for a coalition in 2008 and I don't get the point of one that must involve a party that doesn't want to govern. However, I do think that Harper has pushed the idea that all coalitions are illegal and undemocratic. This rhetoric is dangerous and it has shown because people in our province have attacked parties different from the CPC.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Asking the Governor General to consider all of her options before dissolving parliament does not constitute the Conservatives forming a coalition.

It pretty much does. Really the GG only has two options...

1: Dissolve parliament, call an election
2: Invite the leader of another political party to seek the confidence of the house

So all the opposition parties were in effect saying "consider asking us to form government"... sounds like a Coalition to me. If Harper had penned the letter alone it would be different but the act of having a joint declaration makes it pretty apparent what they were talking about.