[GT] Canada Election 2025

[surferguy]

Can this thread close now so we have one less political thread?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Can this thread close now so we have one less political thread?

The best way to do it is to force the mods to lock it with off-side insults and slander, you #### faced MAGA munchkin.



Best if it's a group effort. You're up!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The best way to do it is to force the mods to lock it with off-side insults and slander, you #### faced MAGA munchkin.

Best if it's a group effort. You're up!

Listen you pickle-brained tyrant - you can't tell everyone else what to do. We'll only engage in insulting behaviour if we want to!

[puffnstuff]

The pickle is just gherkin us around

[TheIronMaiden]

The Mods arent allowed to lock this thread until they've given us our poll asking who we voted for this election!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not to mention the endless wrangling that goes on to cobble together a coalition. Last year it took the Netherlands 223 days of negotiations to form a government. In 2021-22 it took them 299 days. Imagine, with the challenges Canada faces today, if we didn’t have a governing coalition and cabinet in place until Feb 24, 2026.

The Netherlands also has 15 parties with seats, from a population a little under half the size of Canada. Many of those 15 parties, consist of alliances of multiple parties themselves.

In the Netherlands a populist let by Geert Wilders won. It was pretty clear he was going to form a government with the other populist and right wing parties. It was more a question of who got what kind of power within the government.

Pretty different than Canada's situation, where the Liberals just need to form a coalition with one other party.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Listen you pickle-brained tyrant - you can't tell everyone else what to do. We'll only engage in insulting behaviour if we want to!

This isn't a dictatorship yet you monkey loving, ape faced, #### for brains, ##########, mother####er. And the horse you rode in on too.

[Makarov]

I went to a nice restaurant last night (Applebee's) and specifically asked our waitress for EXTRA ranch dressing. She only brought me three cups and then when I said that wasn't enough she looked at me like I am the crazy one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can bet I didn't leave her a tip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I went to a nice restaurant last night (Applebee's) and specifically asked our waitress for EXTRA ranch dressing. She only brought me three cups and then when I said that wasn't enough she looked at me like I am the crazy one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can bet I didn't leave her a tip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You knock on the Devil's door long enough...sooner or later someone's gonna answer!!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Netherlands also has 15 parties with seats, from a population a little under half the size of Canada. Many of those 15 parties, consist of alliances of multiple parties themselves.

In the Netherlands a populist let by Geert Wilders won. It was pretty clear he was going to form a government with the other populist and right wing parties. It was more a question of who got what kind of power within the government.

Pretty different than Canada's situation, where the Liberals just need to form a coalition with one other party.

Right. They have 15 parties because they have proportional representation as their form of election. So everyone with an idea can form a party and get a seat or two.

The conversation was about how first past the post incentivizes people to vote for the candidates that have a chance of winning, reducing the number of fringe parties. I think that's a good thing, others disagree.

Basically the closer to the Netherlands system (which is pretty pure proportional rep) the more parties you end up with. Canada has 5 with at least one seats.

The "fact-check" posted earlier from a proportional representation advocacy website gave Germany, Ireland and New Zealand as examples of Single Transferrable Vote and Mixed Member PR fully sovereign states. They have between 6 and 9 parties with seats. There are sub-national governments with less, but none of them have nearly the regional diversity of Canada, which will naturally result in more parties.

In most versions of PR the PPC would have gotten seats this election (and they almost certainly would have received more votes if people knew they had a chance of winning seats), so we'd already be up to 6 immediately. And IMO you'd immediately see multiple fringe/single issue parties join the Greens advocating for one issue with a couple of seats - clogging up the government and making things more difficult to run. I'd expect to see far-right and far-left parties focused on social issues join the fray. I also think you'd see regional parties for the Maritimes and Alberta join the BQ in advocating only for their region - this is especially likely if you make the PR portion regional or multi-member riding style.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Right. They have 15 parties because they have proportional representation as their form of election. So everyone with an idea can form a party and get a seat or two.

The conversation was about how first past the post incentivizes people to vote for the candidates that have a chance of winning, reducing the number of fringe parties. I think that's a good thing, others disagree.

Basically the closer to the Netherlands system (which is pretty pure proportional rep) the more parties you end up with. Canada has 5 with at least one seats.

The "fact-check" posted earlier from a proportional representation advocacy website gave Germany, Ireland and New Zealand as examples of Single Transferrable Vote and Mixed Member PR fully sovereign states. They have between 6 and 9 parties with seats.

In most versions of PR the PPC would have gotten seats this election (and they almost certainly would have received more votes if people knew they had a chance of winning seats), so we'd already be up to 6 immediately. And IMO you'd immediately see multiple fringe/single issue parties join the Greens advocating for one issue with a couple of seats - clogging up the government and making things more difficult to run.

The Netherlands also has a system in place where the previous Cabinet is not simply dissolved and the government left in Limbo while the new government sorts itself out. The government is still functioning, in a more limited manner, for the time it takes to sort out the new leaders. The powers are reduced, but it isn't just left in Limbo like we are here.

And that has always been the trade-off in a democracy, the efficiency. People will need to work together, which makes things difficult, because compromise is difficult. What we have now is the illusion of democracy where we want to silence the "fringe" or "single issue" voters because it is easier to do things that way. We go from 4 parties, to 3, to 2 and end up like the US which is a hop skip and jump away from autocracy.

Yes there are issues with having more voices, but I would rather have more voices and the challenges of actually compromising and listening to people, than the challenges of divisive one side or the other politics. But if there were enough people in this country that the PPC should have 6 people representing them in the government, then how can we claim to be democratic when we want to silence people?

Besides, we've already seen the fringe infect the mainstream conservative parties in both Canada and the US and steer them towards values that don't represent the whole. I'd rather see them in their own place than in the backrooms of the UCP/CPC/Republicans.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I went to a nice restaurant last night (Applebee's) and specifically asked our waitress for EXTRA ranch dressing. She only brought me three cups and then when I said that wasn't enough she looked at me like I am the crazy one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can bet I didn't leave her a tip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you phucking dare!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The Netherlands also has a system in place where the previous Cabinet is not simply dissolved and the government left in Limbo while the new government sorts itself out. The government is still functioning, in a more limited manner, for the time it takes to sort out the new leaders. The powers are reduced, but it isn't just left in Limbo like we are here.

And that has always been the trade-off in a democracy, the efficiency. People will need to work together, which makes things difficult, because compromise is difficult. What we have now is the illusion of democracy where we want to silence the "fringe" or "single issue" voters because it is easier to do things that way. We go from 4 parties, to 3, to 2 and end up like the US which is a hop skip and jump away from autocracy.

Yes there are issues with having more voices, but I would rather have more voices and the challenges of actually compromising and listening to people, than the challenges of divisive one side or the other politics. But if there were enough people in this country that the PPC should have 6 people representing them in the government, then how can we claim to be democratic when we want to silence people?

Besides, we've already seen the fringe infect the mainstream conservative parties in both Canada and the US and steer them towards values that don't represent the whole. I'd rather see them in their own place than in the backrooms of the UCP/CPC/Republicans.

I guess to me having an incentive for parties to move toward the centre to be electable makes it more likely the country is governed from a place closest to what the majority of Canadians want.

If you end up with 15 parties you can end up being governed by a cobbled together set of interests where the pro-life party and the socialist party each get something they want to support the government, and the things they want aren't close to the values of the majority of Canadians.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In most versions of PR the PPC would have gotten seats this election (and they almost certainly would have received more votes if people knew they had a chance of winning seats), so we'd already be up to 6 immediately. And IMO you'd immediately see multiple fringe/single issue parties join the Greens advocating for one issue with a couple of seats - clogging up the government and making things more difficult to run. I'd expect to see far-right and far-left parties focused on social issues join the fray. I also think you'd see regional parties for the Maritimes and Alberta join the BQ in advocating only for their region - this is especially likely if you make the PR portion regional or multi-member riding style.

"It makes government to inefficient when more people have a voice" is a very undemocratic thing to say.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that you can't really consider yourself a proponent of true democracy when you're against the messy parts.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I guess to me having an incentive for parties to move toward the centre to be electable makes it more likely the country is governed from a place closest to what the majority of Canadians want.

This is just factually untrue.

1. We have a CPC party that continues to move further and further right every election, yet still captures at least 35% of the vote.

2. Do you think it's reasonable that the BQ gets 25-30 seats every election when they get 5% of the popular vote? Do they represent the majority of what most Canadians want?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Netherlands also has 15 parties with seats, from a population a little under half the size of Canada. Many of those 15 parties, consist of alliances of multiple parties themselves.

In the Netherlands a populist let by Geert Wilders won. It was pretty clear he was going to form a government with the other populist and right wing parties. It was more a question of who got what kind of power within the government.

Pretty different than Canada's situation, where the Liberals just need to form a coalition with one other party.

If Canada had proportional representation, it’s safe to assume there would be more parties in parliament. Maybe not 15, but depending on where we set the threshold probably 7 or 8. And it’s also safe to assume those party’s seats would come at the expense of the larger parties. So no, I don’t think forming a governing coalition would just be matter of the Liberals partnering with one other party.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If Canada had proportional representation, it’s safe to assume there would be more parties in parliament. Maybe not 15, but depending on where we set the threshold probably 7 or 8. And it’s also safe to assume those party’s seats would come at the expense of the larger parties. So no, I don’t think forming a governing coalition would just be matter of the Liberals partnering with one other party.

You might get a few more PPC and Green seats. You're probably not getting a Christian Heritage Party or Marxist-Leninist seat unless the established threshold is below 2%.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"It makes government to inefficient when more people have a voice" is a very undemocratic thing to say.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that you can't really consider yourself a proponent of true democracy when you're against the messy parts.

The rightward direction of the UCP and the federal Conservatives is a consequence of more people at the grassroots level bypassing traditional gatekeepers in the media and parties to have a voice in politics. It’s become apparent over the last couple decades that our institutions and institutional norms were more moderate than the electorate. So be careful what you wish for.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The rightward direction of the UCP and the federal Conservatives is a consequence of more people at the grassroots level bypassing traditional gatekeepers in the media and parties to have a voice in politics. It’s become apparent over the last couple decades that our institutions and institutional norms were more moderate than the electorate. So be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure we'd all love a benevolent aristocracy to make things easier on us. I'd also like to own the Philadelphia Eagles. I think the latter is actually more attainable.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"It makes government to inefficient when more people have a voice" is a very undemocratic thing to say.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that you can't really consider yourself a proponent of true democracy when you're against the messy parts.

I think fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness are all reasonable goals for governance, and you have to consider the tradeoffs between them.

I think the current first past the post system is less fair than some of the PR options but produces more efficient and effective governments.

To add fairness and be more democratic I'd actually prefer direct democracy for important issues vs going to PR. I think it could be done electronically in 2025 - maybe you log into your CRA account or similar to vote.

Then you have one voice negotiating with Trump (not a coalition of 3 parties that don't really agree) but you also give people a direct voice in issues.

The other reason I don't like PR is the concept of party lists. Having the option to vote against an individual candidate who sucks is a good thing, and makes our democracy more representative.