Vote Compass

[transplant99]

Don't you think that the fact you know how many complaints were levied and such is a sign of openess and transparency? How many were levied against the other outlets? I frankly have no idea (and don't really care), but just because someone complains doesn't mean they aren't open and transparent.

Ummmm...no, not when the complaints are about NOT being open and transparent.

Strange argument.

[transplant99]

How is this surprising to anyone? The Liberals are Canada's centrist party.

Are they though? Im not sure they are any more centrist than anyone else any longer.

And the CBC is a socialist plot to control the nation's minds right?

I don't recall anyone saying that. It is pretty obvious to anyone with "critical thinking" abilities however, that the CBC is in fact a left leaning orginization even though they are mandated not to be bias towards any party simply by their funding. That taxpayer money cames from ALL people of ALL political stripes. The right has a legitimate beef with this whole deal. Though I doubt it has much affect on anything in the end.

Attempting to suggest collusion between the CBC and the Liberals based on this only results in Levant looking even more of a moron then he already is.

No it doesn't. The connections are clear and concise. It would be more absurd to believe that Ignatieffs former policy adviser has all of a sudden become some neutral observer in all this when he is responsible for the way it is read....which happens to favor Ignatieff. No?

You don't like Levant's opinions...fine. He is a party shill and has been for a long time. It doesn't mean what was in that op-ed piece isn't a valid concern.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You don't like Levant's opinions...fine. He is a party shill and has been for a long time. It doesn't mean what was in that op-ed piece isn't a valid concern.

No, the concern is when people substitute op-ed pieces for information sources. I've yet to see a single valid piece of information from a source outside of QMI Agency. Whole thing smells of political opportunism, CPC sanctioned or not.

The Liberals are the most central party in Canada and have been for most of it's history. I have seen nothing to suggest this has changed. Economically, socially and legally, every other party has a more extreme viewpoint then the Liberals do.

And I was joking about the CBC being a socialist plot. I'll add the green text before someone takes my head off...

[llama64]

So all this drama over the party icons... has no one noticed that Duceppe seems to clean up for PM recommendations?

I've chatted with about 10 people who took this survey. Nearly all of them came up with Duceppe in a commanding lead as the best choice for PM for them (usually greyed out as an option).

In my case the break down was something like Duceppe: 20, Ignatief: 2, Harper: 1.7.

Does this mean CBC is in collusion with the Bloq to make Duceppe PM!?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by llama64

No, the concern is when people substitute op-ed pieces for information sources. I've yet to see a single valid piece of information from a source outside of QMI Agency. Whole thing smells of political opportunism, CPC sanctioned or not.

The Liberals are the most central party in Canada and have been for most of it's history. I have seen nothing to suggest this has changed. Economically, socially and legally, every other party has a more extreme viewpoint then the Liberals do.

And I was joking about the CBC being a socialist plot. I'll add the green text before someone takes my head off...

Is QMI not a valid media outlet though?

As for centrists and who is what...the whole thing is so obfuscated anymore I dont think anyone can make that claim. just the fact that "center" is a moving target as times change makes this factual. In fact i would suggest that whoever gets elected is the "central" party just by that happening....in the truest sense anyhow.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by llama64

So all this drama over the party icons... has no one noticed that Duceppe seems to clean up for PM recommendations?

I've chatted with about 10 people who took this survey. Nearly all of them came up with Duceppe in a commanding lead as the best choice for PM for them (usually greyed out as an option).

In my case the break down was something like Duceppe: 20, Ignatief: 2, Harper: 1.7.

Does this mean CBC is in collusion with the Bloq to make Duceppe PM!?

The guy has charisma oozing out of his skin, doesn't mean he would make the best leader though (obviously since he has no interest beyond Quebecs borders). It would mean that he is just better than the rest....which is in and of itself a rather scathing indictment of the political landscape in canada.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is QMI not a valid media outlet though?

As for centrists and who is what...the whole thing is so obfuscated anymore I dont think anyone can make that claim. just the fact that "center" is a moving target as times change makes this factual. In fact i would suggest that whoever gets elected is the "central" party just by that happening....in the truest sense anyhow.

QMI is just as valid as CBC. Personally I would trust information coming out of CBC's outlets far more then anything QMI sharts out, but that's just my own bias. But I can't be in the same room if Rex Murphy comes on the set so...

But my point is that the only way to judge information is if it is corroborated elsewhere by a journalist. Op-Ed peices are full of nothing but crap that doesn't need to be sourced - it's not journalism. Trusting any information given in such an article is foolhardy.

As for centrism - I'd argue that it hasn't changed. Parties move around the spectrum for sure, but the Liberals are still the most centrist of our choices. The Conservatives and the NDP certainly aren't even close to being centrist at all.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The guy has charisma oozing out of his skin, doesn't mean he would make the best leader though (obviously since he has no interest beyond Quebecs borders). It would mean that he is just better than the rest....which is in and of itself a rather scathing indictment of the political landscape in canada.

My theory is that Duceppe has an unbreachable position and rarely has to engage in anything but things of his own choice. It's an enviable position for any politician.

But, in contrast to the rest of the leaders, it's not hard to impress.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

No, the concern is when people substitute op-ed pieces for information sources. I've yet to see a single valid piece of information from a source outside of QMI Agency. Whole thing smells of political opportunism, CPC sanctioned or not.

The Liberals are the most central party in Canada and have been for most of it's history. I have seen nothing to suggest this has changed. Economically, socially and legally, every other party has a more extreme viewpoint then the Liberals do.

And I was joking about the CBC being a socialist plot. I'll add the green text before someone takes my head off...

I don't agree with you, the Liberals might have been centrist, but they certainly aren't running a central platform in this election.

If you look at the education passport, basically state daycare and their other platforms, they're running a left platform.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As for centrists and who is what...the whole thing is so obfuscated anymore I dont think anyone can make that claim. just the fact that "center" is a moving target as times change makes this factual. In fact i would suggest that whoever gets elected is the "central" party just by that happening....in the truest sense anyhow.

Not if they're a minority. The PCs are 38%, and they're the rightmost 38%. They have no claim to the middle. Unless the Cons get 50%, or the NDP+Greens+Bloc get 50%, the Liberals are over the centre.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Where's the marxist party and the yogic flyers?

Yogic flyers are hovering above the chart. Marxists are 6 feet under.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not if they're a minority. The PCs are 38%, and they're the rightmost 38%. They have no claim to the middle. Unless the Cons get 50%, or the NDP+Greens+Bloc get 50%, the Liberals are over the centre.

So when the Liberals under Martin were a minority gov't, they weren't in the centre anymore? Your logic seems more than a little suspect - where a party lies has nothing to do with how many votes they get, nor can you call a party "centrist" because they get a majority. You're confusing popularity with ideology.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by jammies

So when the Liberals under Martin were a minority gov't, they weren't in the centre anymore? Your logic seems more than a little suspect - where a party lies has nothing to do with how many votes they get, nor can you call a party "centrist" because they get a majority. You're confusing popularity with ideology.

I think what he means is that if you assume that if you lined up all the voters in the country from the most left-wing to the most right-wing, the party that the guy in the absolute middle (the median) votes for in the centrist party. Generally, people on the left are going to vote NDP/Green, people on the right vote Conservative. When conservative popularity is greater than 50%, that center position is going to fall within the conservative realm, otherwise it's going to fall into the Liberal realm.

But that assumes, of course, that Liberals are actually between the Conservatives and NDP on that continuum - Martin's Liberals were arguably further right economically than Harper's conservatives have been. It also assumes that people vote according to their simple left-right ideology, and that these people vote in relatively solid blocks, a couple things that don't happen in the real world.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

So when the Liberals under Martin were a minority gov't, they weren't in the centre anymore? Your logic seems more than a little suspect - where a party lies has nothing to do with how many votes they get, nor can you call a party "centrist" because they get a majority. You're confusing popularity with ideology.

Don't be silly, the Martin Liberals were in the centre because the parties to the right of them had less than a majority and the parties to the left of them had less than a majority. Ergo, the middle still belongs to them. For the Conservatives to have the middle, they do need a majority because there is nobody to the right of them.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It also assumes that people vote according to their simple left-right ideology, and that these people vote in relatively solid blocks, a couple things that don't happen in the real world.

It further assumes that there has to be left, centre and rightist parties. Look south of the border and you'll see two rightist parties dominating - do each of them get a turn at being centrist when they win an election? No.

Originally Posted by SebC

Don't be silly, the Martin Liberals were in the centre because the parties to the right of them had less than a majority and the parties to the left of them had less than a majority. Ergo, the middle still belongs to them. For the Conservatives to have the middle, they do need a majority because there is nobody to the right of them.

You're assuming there's a nice even bell curve of voters with the fat part being in the middle of the curve which is then called the "centre". To misquote: that's not right, that's not even wrong.

There's no reason that there can't be a huge population of voters on the extreme left and extreme right of the spectrum, or a flat distribution, or a huge leftist "slope", or whatever arbitrary grouping you can imagine.

All you're really saying is "The Liberals are left of the Cons, and right of everyone else, therefore they are the centre". That logically does not follow as it's perfectly possible that there are 4 leftist parties and one rightist, or five rightists, or five centrists, or - as I would see it right now - three leftist and two centre parties, with the right being empty since Reform compromised itself to gain power.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

You're assuming there's a nice even bell curve of voters with the fat part being in the middle of the curve which is then called the "centre". To misquote: that's not right, that's not even wrong.

There's no reason that there can't be a huge population of voters on the extreme left and extreme right of the spectrum, or a flat distribution, or a huge leftist "slope", or whatever arbitrary grouping you can imagine.

All you're really saying is "The Liberals are left of the Cons, and right of everyone else, therefore they are the centre".

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the center, defined by the median voter, is Liberal. How do you propose to define where the middle is (the Canadian middle), if not by voters (Canadian voters)?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by SebC

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the center, defined by the median voter, is Liberal. How do you propose to define where the middle is (the Canadian middle), if not by voters (Canadian voters)?

I don't propose to define where the "middle" is, because there is no such thing, as least not as measured by voters. The thrust of my argument is that despite this being a popular over-simplification, it is a measure of nothing and is completely useless, other than as an convenience for the media to pretend to understand politics.

You can't define political positions on a scale by counting popularity of those positions, or you could just as easily put the Conservatives in the centre of an imaginary political spectrum and the Liberals way off to the right, and call the Conservative voter the median. The only reason you can't do this, is because the left/right scale is INDEPENDENT of the voters, and thus you cannot change that scale due to where the voters lie upon it.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I find the whole right/left model really crude...even this Model (as flawed as the method may be) maps a political position on two axes fiscal and social. Even that is crude but can recognize that someone can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

We need a more nuanced vocabulary for describing political ideologies rather than right/left/centre

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I find the whole right/left model really crude...even this Model (as flawed as the method may be) maps a political position on two axes fiscal and social. Even that is crude but can recognize that someone can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Calling the Green party socially liberal on this graph is a laugh, but socially conservative would be equally wrong. More like "socially transformative to a new, totalitarian conservatism".

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't propose to define where the "middle" is, because there is no such thing, as least not as measured by voters. The thrust of my argument is that despite this being a popular over-simplification, it is a measure of nothing and is completely useless, other than as an convenience for the media to pretend to understand politics.

You can't define political positions on a scale by counting popularity of those positions, or you could just as easily put the Conservatives in the centre of an imaginary political spectrum and the Liberals way off to the right, and call the Conservative voter the median. The only reason you can't do this, is because the left/right scale is INDEPENDENT of the voters, and thus you cannot change that scale due to where the voters lie upon it.

You can't call a Conservative voter the median, because the median is a well-defined term that applies to populations. The median Canadian voter is Liberal, whether you characterise them as centre, left or right. I feel that centrist is an appropriate characterization of a party that includes the median Canadian voter, in a Canadian frame of reference. Especially since that party doesn't include the extreme left or the extreme right, unlike the parties in the US.

Another way to define the scale is to use the party's stated positions. This is what the Vote Compass team did, and since they're using the same questions to place parties and voters, it doesn't really matter where they place the axises because the process is based on a scale that stays consistent.