2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Frequitude]

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.

Huh? Its the lefties who doing a bunch of whining about PR. How are the righties getting out of hand???

Sour grapes, fear of the boogie man, and a short term memory is all it looks like to me.

Funny use of the word "should".

[V]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think it's fairly obvious that 40% of anything doesn't qualify as a majority.

It's also fairly obvious that 54% does.

[burn_this_city]

I'd love to go back through the thread and see who was asking for PR before May 2nd..

[MarchHare]

Very few NDP, Liberals, BQ or Green would list the Conservatives as their second choice.

Actually, very many Liberal supporters would (grudgingly) list the Conservatives as their second choice. This is, in fact, a big reason why Harper won a majority. When the NDP started polling stronger (and a coalition government with Jack Layton as PM became a real possibility), blue Liberals started supporting the CPC because they didn't necessarily like the Conservatives, but they liked the NDP even less.

[peter12]

The translation of a minority of popular votes into a majority of seats is actually one of the greatest advantages of FPTP. It means strong, stable governments capable of executing long-term agendas.

Not to mention that having two ideologically opposed parties moderated with a centrist pragmatic party (see the UK) generally means that a lot of policy questions are solved at the party convention level instead of huge, costly elections (of which there are many in PR systems) is generally very good.

This PR talk is just sour grapes. Major conservatives, like my undergraduate superviser Tom Flanagan, were alllll over PR after the Reform defeats during the '90s.

[Frequitude]

For the PR side, you really think the Greater Toronto Area should have 30% more power than Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

For the PR side, you really think the Greater Toronto Area should have 30% more power than Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined?

Yeah, PR would virtually destroy all the gains made by the West during the last election. Do we really want to make the dominance of Laurentian Canada (The Toronto-Montreal corridor) a permanent feature of our political landscape??

[burn_this_city]

I shudder at that prospect.

[Calgaryborn]

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.

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.

The CPC won 40% of the vote with 4 other choices to chose from. Some people voted aginst them just because they didn't feel comfortable with Harper having a majority government. That doesn't mean they would have felt more comfortable with one of the others having a majority government. Harper being the front runner had 4 different parties attacking his record.

Combine the left and Harper gets equal time in the debate rather than 1/4th of the time. Harper also gets 1 opponent to buffet instead of 5. His attacks can zero in on 1 guy and 1 platform.

Layton benefited greatly by picking up steam as the campaign went on. He got a lot of votes from people who didn't take much time to look at the NDP platform. Layton was voted for to be the opposition. He won't ever win a governing majority on personality alone. The nuts and bolts of his platform will have to stand up to scrutiny.

In a two party system Harper easily gets a majority.

[Slava]

You guys can call it sour grapes, and thats fine. It's just totally logical though. If you were running a business would you let a guy with 40% ownership have sole control?

I get that the CPC won the most seats and yes that gives a majority. I don't dispute the validity of the election at all, and I supported a PR system for years....I'm sure that there is a thread around here that would show that.

Bottomline is that the majority now, and in the Chretien years (and going back even further probably to 1984, are results of electoral distortion, not representative of the wishes of the majority of voters.

With a straight PR system the BQ neve would've had more than 10-15% of the seats, the Greens would've had representation years ago and every vote actually matters.

As convinced as I am that this is the one way to run a democracy I also note that this will never happen. You would need a majority to do this, and once a party has that kind of power they aren't too fond of diluting that in the next election.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, PR would virtually destroy all the gains made by the West during the last election. Do we really want to make the dominance of Laurentian Canada (The Toronto-Montreal corridor) a permanent feature of our political landscape??

What gains did the West make?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

What gains did the West make?

You're kidding, right?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

You guys can call it sour grapes, and thats fine. It's just totally logical though. If you were running a business would you let a guy with 40% ownership have sole control?

I hope you're not saying that out of one side of your mouth while owning non-voting shares in Rogers, Shaw, Magna, and other Canadian Nepotism companies.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I hope you're not saying that out of one side of your mouth while owning non-voting shares in Rogers, Shaw, Magna, and other Canadian Nepotism companies.

I don't buy that kind of junk!

Point still still stands though? It's just not logical.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're kidding, right?

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

How much do you want to bet that that will never see the light of day?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

You guys can call it sour grapes, and thats fine. It's just totally logical though. If you were running a business would you let a guy with 40% ownership have sole control?

I get that the CPC won the most seats and yes that gives a majority. I don't dispute the validity of the election at all, and I supported a PR system for years....I'm sure that there is a thread around here that would show that.

Bottomline is that the majority now, and in the Chretien years (and going back even further probably to 1984, are results of electoral distortion, not representative of the wishes of the majority of voters.

With a straight PR system the BQ neve would've had more than 10-15% of the seats, the Greens would've had representation years ago and every vote actually matters.

As convinced as I am that this is the one way to run a democracy I also note that this will never happen. You would need a majority to do this, and once a party has that kind of power they aren't too fond of diluting that in the next election.

How does proportional voting work when Ontario and Quebec combined have about 60% of the population. Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC and Manitoba would be even less important under that system.

And if Quebec which has about 24% of Canada's population supported the block they would have about 73 seats.

The current system balances out the representation of the smaller provinces.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

Lets separate things out here. The NDP wanted a umbrella cap and trade no matter what the Amercan's did with their policies. they wanted to cancel fossil fuel subsidies bump up corporate tax rates, they also wanted to look at regulating fuel prices.

The Liberal's had a similar policy with a lower corporate tax rate.

The Conservatives would only implement a cap and trade if the american's did, and the Conservatives would selectively implement a cap and trade to ensure that it doesn't hamper Canadian industry and the energy sector.

So saying that the conservatives had a generic cap and trade like the others is incorrect.

I'm fine with the no new spending on projects in the west, a lot of the promises that the Conservatives made are not going to be outlayed for up to 4 years.

Yes, Harper didn't come out to Alberta, that's unfortunate.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Please enlighten me? I followed the election as close as anyone....so let's see:

-$2.2 billion to PQ for HST harmonization going back to 1992

- majority for a party that has cap and trade as a policy

-no visits to the "heart of the new west" by the PM or major ministers

- no new spending or projects for the West

Man....we made out like bandits!

-No cap and trade without an equal commitment from USA.

-Got a government who knows the value of oil.

- More representation for Western Provinces in the form of seats in the next election.

- Less spending and therefore less borrowing than any other party would have delivered

- No more gun registry for long rifles.

- Most of the West's MP sit with the majority and will have more of a voice than the opposition parties.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What you just said makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense. Which part doesnt make sense?