2011 Canadian Election Thread

[evman150]

Even with all my hate for the Conservatives, this talk about 40% not being good enough or whatever is bull####. They got the votes, they get their majority. I have no zero problem with it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Oh you mean like the instability of 2 consecutive minority governments? Gimme a break this is why Canada absolutely needs PR. We have already seen how the current system can throw parliament into complete disarray.

So the solution to instability is to create absolute instability?

The failure of the bloc quebecqois and the proper allocation of seats should lead to much more stability in future federal elections.

The past few years of constant elections and parliamentry stalemates would be a constant under PR.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by evman150

Even with all my hate for the Conservatives, this talk about 40% not being good enough or whatever is bull####. They got the votes, they get their majority. I have no zero problem with it.

That means that more than 60% of the population didnt vote Conservative. Its as simple as that.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

That means that more than 60% of the population didnt vote Conservative. Its as simple as that.

And? They had the most votes and won the most ridings.

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

That means that more than 60% of the population didnt vote Conservative. Its as simple as that.

so, there were 4 parties given national exposure to vote for they got less votes then the Conservatives

[Canuck-Hater]

Well we could beat this PR topic to death but I only bring it up because I care about Democracy.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

That means that more than 60% of the population didnt vote Conservative. Its as simple as that.

Yes, but it is improper to define the result as 40% support, 60% oppose. Our electoral system simply does not work that way.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Well we could beat this PR topic to death but I only bring it up because I care about Democracy.

WINNER!! You've got us, we all hate democracy.

[Shazam]

Comrade, soon the fascist death squads will smote those that need smiting! Amen.

[burn_this_city]

I too tire of democracy, can we opt for a fundamentalist theocracy instead?

[troutman]

In the good old days of democracy, only rich men could vote.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Well we could beat this PR topic to death but I only bring it up because I care about Democracy.

I care about democracy too, but sometimes PR type people focus too much on what happens on election day and not enough time thinking about how that translates into how government works in the broad sense.

Read up on California. Basically what happens when things are 'too democratic.'

Summary:

California, participates a lot in 'direct democracy' through propositions. What's untimately happened is that over the course of decade California voters have tied the hands of the government to 80-90% of the state budget through mandatory propositions. They all in iscolation seem like wonderful things, but as a whole, they have plunged the state into the fiscal abysss, and the government cannot do anything about it because their hands are tied. Ultimately individuals don't know enough about the issues and how they relate to the big picture to be allowed to vote directly on binding legislation.

A PR system won't be as disaterous, but the same theme of one-issue parties holding the balance of power on different votes at different times can have a similar effect on legislation that gets passed. But I guess everyone can feel warm and fuzzy because they got to vote for a party that speaks more to them personally than an ideologically distilled party designed to represent a large component of the electorate in a two party system. Ultimatelty in a two party system, varrying viewpoints get decided at the party level and no extreme views come forward or butt heads to form legislation.

http://www.economist.com/node/185636...TOKEN=76827669

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Oh you mean like the instability of 2 consecutive minority governments? Gimme a break this is why Canada absolutely needs PR. We have already seen how the current system can throw parliament into complete disarray.

What you just said makes no sense.

[evman150]

Large scale direct democracy doesn't work. Reasonable people have known this since antiquity.

[Devils'Advocate]

From:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/C.../17785996.html

"Most Conservatives (61%) simply said there was no second choice, but among all the other parties, only about one-quarter of their supporters declined to give any second choice.

The NDP is the preferred second choice of Liberals, BQ, and Green voters while the Liberals are the preferred second choice of NDP supporters."

Which makes sense. Because the Conservatives own the right side of the spectrum while the other parties share the left. Which would suggest that the 40% for and 60% against holds. Very few NDP, Liberals, BQ or Green would list the Conservatives as their second choice. Very few Conservatives would even HAVE a second choice, as per the poll.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

From:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/C.../17785996.html

"Most Conservatives (61%) simply said there was no second choice, but among all the other parties, only about one-quarter of their supporters declined to give any second choice.

The NDP is the preferred second choice of Liberals, BQ, and Green voters while the Liberals are the preferred second choice of NDP supporters."

Which makes sense. Because the Conservatives own the right side of the spectrum while the other parties share the left. Which would suggest that the 40% for and 60% against holds. Very few NDP, Liberals, BQ or Green would list the Conservatives as their second choice. Very few Conservatives would even HAVE a second choice, as per the poll.

That's a whole lot of assuming you've done there.... 100% of all NDP, Liberal, BQ and Green would choose another 'left' party as their second choice?

I find that hard to believe.

Clearly, the Conservatives hold the position closest to the middle of the political spectrum. That's why they won the election, and it's just as likely they would recieve a majority of all Canadian votes if there was a two party system as assuming the left would hold 100% of all votes in a 'merged' event.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

From:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/C.../17785996.html

"Most Conservatives (61%) simply said there was no second choice, but among all the other parties, only about one-quarter of their supporters declined to give any second choice.

The NDP is the preferred second choice of Liberals, BQ, and Green voters while the Liberals are the preferred second choice of NDP supporters."

Which makes sense. Because the Conservatives own the right side of the spectrum while the other parties share the left. Which would suggest that the 40% for and 60% against holds. Very few NDP, Liberals, BQ or Green would list the Conservatives as their second choice. Very few Conservatives would even HAVE a second choice, as per the poll.

I strongly doubt that blue Liberals would list the NDP as their second choice. You can't simply lump the Liberals/Bloc/NDP/Green entirely as the left wing. It's very likely that if we had two parties, one right and one left, that the right side would be able to get greater than 50% of the vote. Who in their right mind actually wanted an NDP led majority government? I think you would see, that if that were ever a serious option, many of these so called "left wing voters" would be running to the Conservatives.

[Slava]

The CPC supporters here are just getting out of hand. You won a majority of seats (largely due to vote splits, and with a small amount of growth). I think it's fairly obvious that 40% of anything doesn't qualify as a majority. You wouldn't qualify that as a passing grade, or the lions share of something you were entitled to? Point blank you earned 40% of the vote and 40% of the seats is what you should get.

I actually don't think that minorities are a huge problem either. We just went through the worst financial crisis in about 80 years with a minority and came through this fantastically (I heard about for 6weeks straight this spring!). Clearly a minority doesn't mean nothing gets done, and it doesn't mean that no one wants to invest here or any other concerns. All it means is that politicians have to fear losing their jobs more often...could be much worse.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

The CPC supporters here are just getting out of hand. You won a majority of seats (largely due to vote splits, and with a small amount of growth). I think it's fairly obvious that 40% of anything doesn't qualify as a majority. You wouldn't qualify that as a passing grade, or the lions share of something you were entitled to? Point blank you earned 40% of the vote and 40% of the seats is what you should get.

How would you determine who represents which riding then?

[V]

Originally Posted by Slava

The CPC supporters here are just getting out of hand. You won a majority of seats (largely due to vote splits, and with a small amount of growth). I think it's fairly obvious that 40% of anything doesn't qualify as a majority.

Holy crap. So at the beginning of the thread we had t99 claiming that a minority is a majority, and if you don't agree then you're just arguing semantics.

Now at the end we have Slava stating that a majority isn't a majority (which I assume makes it a minority?)

We've come full circle in what could quite possibly be one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a politics thread. Unbelievable.