2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What do you mean? I'm not scared of the NDP at all. In case you haven't noticed, we have a majority government now. I've never been less worried about Jack Layton before in my life. I thought I was actually being positive in my last comment, suggesting that this would now force ALL parties to ensure that their candidates are at least moderately qualified, lest they should suffer the same bad press that the NDP currently are. Kinda figured you would be on board with me here...

The reality is that all parties run candidates who are not "qualified" from time to time. Its the nature of finding 308 candidates to run to represent the party on May 2, 2011. It might seem like a foreign concept here because the Liberals and CPC are larger organizations in general. The NDP, Greens and others are just smaller groups in general. The NDP wants to field a full slate of candidates and in order to do so there are candidates who are either inexperienced or parachuted in. I wouldn't doubt that when the Reform party was still growing it did the exact same thing.

Would I vote for these people? No. The voters there chose these people (probably on the basis of the party), but its their decision. There is also something to be said for not having yet another middle-aged male in the house of commons...some younger people with different concerns and maybe different perspectives isn't the most horrendous thing in the world.

I am curious to hear what a qualified candidate would be though...for me it would start with spending a certain amount of time in the riding.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Ark2

sigh... it was a joke about Layton, one that I will make no apologies for. Hyped up rhetoric indeed...

To follow-up, in light of past events, was there a massage quid pro quo for said six-figure job? Mmmmmmhmmmmm.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If the NDP bartender girl ran as a Conservative in almost any riding in Alberta, she would have been elected there too.

Quebec isn't the only place that people pick the party over the candidate.

You should have just said Rob Anders...cause the simple fact people vote for him given his track record is just silly.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

To follow-up, in light of past events, was there a massage quid pro quo for said six-figure job? Mmmmmmhmmmmm.

AH-HAH! More hyped up rhetoric

[Resolute 14]

I would note that eliminating the vote subsidy will help this problem, as parties will have less reason to run placeholder candidates just so they can get free money.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

The reality is that all parties run candidates who are not "qualified" from time to time. Its the nature of finding 308 candidates to run to represent the party on May 2, 2011. It might seem like a foreign concept here because the Liberals and CPC are larger organizations in general. The NDP, Greens and others are just smaller groups in general. The NDP wants to field a full slate of candidates and in order to do so there are candidates who are either inexperienced or parachuted in. I wouldn't doubt that when the Reform party was still growing it did the exact same thing.

Yes, yes. In fact, I recall saying the exact same thing in this thread earlier:

Originally Posted by Ark2

I don't blame them for it. They needed to have candidates in every riding and they didn't think they had a chance in those ridings. I'm sure every national party has done the same thing elsewhere, the only difference is, those candidates lose. I just think it could have been very interesting had the CPC not won a majority and Layton had been given an opportunity to form a coalition and become PM.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would note that eliminating the vote subsidy will help this problem, as parties will have less reason to run placeholder candidates just so they can get free money.

Do you think that more candidates win by acclamation as a result?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If the NDP bartender girl ran as a Conservative in almost any riding in Alberta, she would have been elected there too.

Quebec isn't the only place that people pick the party over the candidate.

I'm guessing a francophone that doesn't speak english wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected in Alberta.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you think that more candidates win by acclamation as a result?

I think the LP and the CP will run a candidate in every riding no matter what.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would note that eliminating the vote subsidy will help this problem, as parties will have less reason to run placeholder candidates just so they can get free money.

I'm not really sure it would help that much. Parties would still try to field a full line up of candidates just in case people are voting for the party rather than the person. If the NDP hadn't have put this woman in that riding, they would have lost a seat as a result. You might as well still try to field a full line up and hope for the best. I don't imagine the extra cost would outweigh the potential benefits.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Do you think that more candidates win by acclamation as a result?

Not in a multiparty system, no.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would note that eliminating the vote subsidy will help this problem, as parties will have less reason to run placeholder candidates just so they can get free money.

I would note that that is crazy. You seem to think the vote subsidy thing will change a lot of things that it won't.

The NDP put people in every riding across Canada before the subsidy and will after the subsidy. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting extra money and has everything to do with providing a representative, and yes sometimes a placeholder representative, in every single riding across the country. Since the subsidy likely will be gone next election, I bet that the NDP STILL run someone in every single riding, including those toaster ridings in Alberta.

[Resolute 14]

No, I think it will change a few small things, this potentially being one. The three major parties, and now the Greens, try to field full slates of candidates, but for various reasons, there is the odd miss. There is less incentive to try and parachute a late entry in if you aren't getting free money out of the deal.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I would note that that is crazy. You seem to think the vote subsidy thing will change a lot of things that it won't.

The NDP put people in every riding across Canada before the subsidy and will after the subsidy. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting extra money and has everything to do with providing a representative, and yes sometimes a placeholder representative, in every single riding across the country. Since the subsidy likely will be gone next election, I bet that the NDP STILL run someone in every single riding, including those toaster ridings in Alberta.

I agree, symbolically Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP will have to be in every riding if they have ambitions of ever being in government. I would argue that any party with a serious chance of forming government would be able to raise enough funds to run in every riding. But what about the green party?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I agree, symbolically Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP will have to be in every riding if they have ambitions of ever being in government. I would argue that any party with a serious chance of forming government would be able to raise enough funds to run in every riding. But what about the green party?

The Green party is not a serious party. Despite higher voter turnout they actually got less votes this time around - by a significant margin. Yes, they did elect Crazy Liz to a seat, but largely because they threw all their money and effort at the one riding, virtually ignoring every other riding in the country.

Much like Layton, it will be interesting to see what Crazy Liz does in the next 4 years.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by old-fart

The Green party is not a serious party.

Not yet. Give it 20 years.

http://greencanada.wordpress.com/200...he-youth-vote/

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-conte...-_july-23_.pdf

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not yet. Give it 20 years.

http://greencanada.wordpress.com/200...he-youth-vote/

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-conte...-_july-23_.pdf

Will the present leader be gone by then?

[yads]

Only assuming most of these young voters don't change their views when they get older which is a very big if.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Will the present leader be gone by then?

I hope so. Grateful for what she has done, but new leadership is needed to take it to the next level.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by yads

Only assuming most of these young voters don't change their views when they get older which is a very big if.

We may also assume older voters will change their views too. I did.