2011 Canadian Election Thread

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by getbak

On the subject of Parliamentary reform: It looks like the house will be expanding again (for the first time since 1997), which will help (slightly) with the disproportionate allocation of seats in the House: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../18109146.html

30 new seats will be added, with 18 going to Ontario (despite having as many as they do, they're still under-represented), 7 to BC, and 5 to Alberta.

It won't change the imbalance between the larger provinces and the smaller, but it will at least bring Alberta, BC, and Ontario roughly in line with Quebec and closer to the rest.

The Conservatives have been trying to make this change for years, but the Bloc kept arguing against it because it weakened Quebec's voice. Now that they have won a majority without Quebec's help, the CPC doesn't need to pander to Quebec, so this change should go through relatively soon.

Of course, there doesn't need to be a rush, so I'd think they'll wait until after the 2011 Census is completed to get the final numbers.

It's also of note that the underrepresented areas are all, in generality, conservative supporting areas. So with the new electoral distributions, and everything else constant, the Conservatives should have had an even larger majority of seats.

Another reason why the NDP, bloc and liberals resisted the move to have Canadians represented more fairly.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Another reason why the NDP, bloc and liberals resisted the move to have Canadians represented more fairly.

But when the Conservatives brought their redistribution bill forward in the last Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois cried foul and demanded Quebec be guaranteed 25% of the seats in the House of Commons regardless of how the Canadian population changes. (Such a guarantee was proposed in the failed Charlottetown Accord.)

I'm not sure how this represents Canada more fairly when Quebec's share of the population has now dropped to 22% according to 2010's census numbers

[Slava]

Well truthfully, I don't know a lot about the CPC position on asymmetrical federalism and how they plan to proceed. Sure a seat reallocation is part of it, but there are other factors like economics, referenced at the bottom of this article:http://communities.canada.com/vancou...fort-food.aspx

Its one of the reasons why when people think that the West suddenly got some amazing advantage from this election I just can't see why. Having the PM from Calgary is nice and all, but really has this CPC government done things much differently from years prior?

[Shazam]

I'm sure if you thought that if the west voted Liberal or NDP, we'd somehow be important in your eyes.

Taken for granted?

Look, under our current system, rich provinces support the poor ones. Doesn't matter what party is in power. This framework has been in place for about a century now. For you to blame the cons in that money being moved is ridiculous.

Cap and trade will not happen with the cons.

Your point about them not visiting is specious. No doubt you think the NDP will do a terrible job of representing La Belle provence, what with their MPs not even being in the province when the election was actually occurring.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well truthfully, I don't know a lot about the CPC position on asymmetrical federalism and how they plan to proceed. Sure a seat reallocation is part of it, but there are other factors like economics, referenced at the bottom of this article:http://communities.canada.com/vancou...fort-food.aspx

Its one of the reasons why when people think that the West suddenly got some amazing advantage from this election I just can't see why. Having the PM from Calgary is nice and all, but really has this CPC government done things much differently from years prior?

It's not that we got an "advantage" - it's that we avoided a "disadvantage", which in the end is the same thing. Had any of the other parties won control, we would have seen a massive wealth transfer to Quebec/Ontario under the guise of environmental regulation, corporate taxation or what have you. I am not under any illusion, especially with this majority having been won in Toronto, that we (Alberta) will suddenly be treated as the golden child. But there will be less grubby federal fingers in my pocket than under the other scenarios...

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

- no new spending or projects for the West

You know, this is all I need to know about you. This says so much about you. Your expectation is that a gov't's purpose is to placate and purchase their way to your vote.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I'm not sure how this represents Canada more fairly when Quebec's share of the population has now dropped to 22% according to 2010's census numbers

Huh? The new allocation of seats moves closer towards an equal representation by population. Alberta, BC, and Ontario are the must underrepresented currently, and that's why they recieve the new seats. Isn't that more fair?

The 25% guarantee attributed to Que is patently unfair, no matter how they try to spin it!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It's not that we got an "advantage" - it's that we avoided a "disadvantage", which in the end is the same thing. Had any of the other parties won control, we would have seen a massive wealth transfer to Quebec/Ontario under the guise of environmental regulation, corporate taxation or what have you. I am not under any illusion, especially with this majority having been won in Toronto, that we (Alberta) will suddenly be treated as the golden child. But there will be less grubby federal fingers in my pocket than under the other scenarios...

I agree with you there, which is one of the reasons that more and more I think that the West needs to have better representation. A seat at the table to be sure, if not our own table.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know, this is all I need to know about you. This says so much about you. Your expectation is that a gov't's purpose is to placate and purchase their way to your vote.

Your comment a few pages back directed at me was all I needed to know about you, so who really cares?

For the record I actually don't think that the government should be buying votes....its one of the main reasons I detest the $2.2B given to Quebec that suddenly materialized after the campaign began. It didn't need to happen quite frankly.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know, this is all I need to know about you. This says so much about you. Your expectation is that a gov't's purpose is to placate and purchase their way to your vote.

No, I don't think that's what he is in favour of. I'm pretty sure I heard him speaking against Conservative MP's that got additional funding for their own ridings. He's just against the CPC, regardless of what they do. I can't count how many times he has misrepresented the Conservatives' stance on cap and trade either...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

No, I don't think that's what he is in favour of. I'm pretty sure I heard him speaking against Conservative MP's that got additional funding for their own ridings. He's just against the CPC, regardless of what they do. I can't count how many times he has misrepresented the Conservatives' stance on cap and trade either...

I'm against cap and trade in general.

The thing is that I don't think its misrepresentation at all. Its their policy, I just make sure that people know that. If you consider my promoting one of their policies as misrepresentation though, I can't stop you!

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Huh? The new allocation of seats moves closer towards an equal representation by population. Alberta, BC, and Ontario are the must underrepresented currently, and that's why they recieve the new seats. Isn't that more fair?

The 25% guarantee attributed to Que is patently unfair, no matter how they try to spin it!

Yes... I totally agree with you. I guess it wasn't clear from my post I was referring to the unfairness in the quoted text.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm against cap and trade in general.

The thing is that I don't think its misrepresentation at all. Its their policy, I just make sure that people know that. If you consider my promoting one of their policies as misrepresentation though, I can't stop you!

You continuously say that all parties have a cap and trade in their platform and then attempt to leave it at that. All three parties do not have an equal stance on it. It's been explained to you repeatedly that Harper would not introduce a cap and trade unless the Americans do, and even then, they would be selective of the industries that it is imposed on. That is a stark contrast to what the NDP/Liberals are proposing, yet you dismiss this and say that they are all proposing a cap and trade. I'm not sure who you are trying to mislead here, but I think your efforts are being wasted.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with you there, which is one of the reasons that more and more I think that the West needs to have better representation. A seat at the table to be sure, if not our own table.

Indeed? Start a separatist party that doesn't involve social conservatism, and I am on-board.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

You continuously say that all parties have a cap and trade in their platform and then attempt to leave it at that. All three parties do not have an equal stance on it. It's been explained to you repeatedly that Harper would not introduce a cap and trade unless the Americans do, and even then, they would be selective of the industries that it is imposed on. That is a stark contrast to what the NDP/Liberals are proposing, yet you dismiss this and say that they are all proposing a cap and trade. I'm not sure who you are trying to mislead here, but I think your efforts are being wasted.

Yup you're totally right. I'm tired of re-hashing the same conversations over and over.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Indeed? Start a separatist party that doesn't involve social conservatism, and I am on-board.

This could really take off! With names like ours though we might labelled as commies or pinkos....oh well, nothing I haven't been called before!

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

Most people I hear advocate for a PR system, when questioned, have serious trouble describing what this entails. “Well, you get the number of seats equal to the percentage of votes.” How could anyone be against such a system? Fascists! Now I’m not saying all of you are in this boat, but I have seen from pretty specious arguments about why PR is all fairy dust and rainbows and our current system is evil and toxic. Let’s take a look at some of the bad things about everyone’s favorite, most democratic system ever: Proportional Representation!

• A PR system gives complete control to the party as to who its MPs would be. The list from which MPs are chosen is generated by the party elite, meaning that you will get a list of people who simply reflect the party leader’s views. These views will become entrenched and parties will be less likely to have a diversity of views. Everyone always votes how the leader wants. You can essentially do away with the House of Commons.

• PR is patronage politics at its worst. Many people dislike the Senate as an old boys’ club where failed-politician party hacks get cushy jobs with little or no effort (basically, if you can’t get elected enough times, you get a Senate seat!). The only difference if we adopt a PR system is now every party gets to do this for its MPs. Say what you will about our current crop of MPs, but some of them still fit the “maverick” bill and occasionally make politics interesting by actually speaking their minds. This will no longer occur. The 150 or so people who the party leader likes the most will be at the top of the PR list, and # 151-308 may be a token person to keep some faction of the party happy (they can be anyone, because they will not be elected). Anyone who gets the least bit out of line will find themselves well down the list in the next election. As I said above (and I’m serious) I question the need for a House of Commons at all if the party gets to choose who the representatives are.

• PR creates splintering and factions. In our current system, parties trend to the centre. This is a very good thing. If you run a party with a platform skewing too far to the left or right, you will lose support. In a PR system, it is much easier to have a successful “Christian White guys party” or “Communist Anarchist kill Capitalism” party. The result is that in a system where coalitions are more frequent, you get a disproportionate voice from amongst the extremists. This is not good for democracy. One might argue that if people want the kook parties to have seats then they should, but try telling me that when some party with very strange ideas holds the balance of power in the next government, and gets abortion outlawed or interracial marriage banned in exchange for the budget being passed.

• PR is not a panacea. Every democracy worth its salt that uses a PR system inevitably has a “hurdle” necessary to clear in order to get seats. This is to prevent people like me from creating the “Crazy Bacon Legs Party” and having one member on the list: me (I would totally do this). One person doesn’t need that much support nationally to get a seat, unless you make it a bit harder to do this. A smart system would have a hurdle between 5-10% in order to avoid these situations. The result would be that many parties, such as the Bloc or Green parties may not elect MPs. Find me a PR system in which the Green Party would have an equal or higher number of MPs than they do now. Paradoxically, a properly set up PR system with hurdles can be less representative if you get too many parties.
• A system with true representation for the voters, or a system with a reasonable hurdle to prevent fractional parties and ensure a system with some sort of shot of working. You can have one, but not both. If you’re going to have hurdles that prevent the one-person and other fringe parties from having seats, why did we go and ditch that old system where we had one Member of Parliament per riding again? I voted for the Raving Loony Monster party, and they still didn’t get a seat! That’s unfair and undemocratic!

• Our system was not designed to have the seats reflect the exact percentage of votes, any more than our system was set up so that the provinces would have the exact same populations. It’s a representative democracy based on having members in ridings. You have a local representative to ask for help with government, to petition, etc. Who do you write to in a pure PR system? The party you like most? The leader of that party? Who do the members represent, exactly? Do you think they’re going to waste time presenting that petition about angry local bison in a Toronto-centric House of Commons?

• PR seriously hurts low population areas. In a PR system, how much campaigning do you think would occur in Nunavut, for example? People in areas like that would be completely ignored (it’s already bad enough). Conversely, all the campaigning would take place in the largest population centres. Why waste time driving around small town Saskatchewan when all the votes are in Toronto? A candidate trying to get elected in small town Saskatchewan in the current system is far more likely to actually (a) be from there, and (b) actually campaign there (Note: this does not apply if you are trying to get elected in Quebec)

• There is nothing to prevent entire areas from having no representation. As with Nunavut, places like PEI, NWT, Yukon, and any small place would likely never get members. It is far better in every respect to simply gather people from the largest urban areas as they will attract the most votes. Your only hope is to cross your fingers that the Prime Minister happens to have a toady from PEI these days. In our current system, even if you don’t like the party affiliation of your MP, you have somebody to deal with if the Dept. of Veteran’s affairs screws up your pension. Furthermore, issues and projects required for small population centres have an even smaller chance of being addressed.

Anyhow, I hope this post might make some of the “PR is the best!” people stop and think that maybe, just maybe, PR is not democracy’s answer to the world. Think for a moment why modern representative democracy took the form it did. There is a lot of historical context to having a local representative who forms a small part of a larger government.

If we were to have some form of PR instituted, I would much prefer to have a mixed system, somewhat similar to Germany. An example: have 100 of the 308 seats elected by PR, with a 5% and 5 seat hurdle. So if a party wants seats in the 100 PR group, they need at least 5% of the vote and 5 riding seats, chosen by FPP. Then, choose party leaders, cabinet, shadow cabinets, etc. from the 100 PR seats. Then they don’t have to waste time pretending they can be regular MPs and cabinet ministers, and we still have FPP representatives in our ridings. You still run into problems with patronage and party hacks, but it would be better.

Here’s an even better solution: legally stop parties from kicking MPs out of the party. Once they are nominated, they are your person. Unless they commit a crime, you have to live with them. Put power back in the hands of the representatives instead of the party structure and I think you would find people would be a lot happier with the way the system works. People might actually pay attention to who their local candidates are. Imagine that!

I don’t pretend our current system is perfect. It’s not. I just think that people thinking a PR system would automatically be better are naïve at best.

By the way, I know you didn't read this post. It's too long, and it's easier to just believe what you've heard vague references to. Politics is boring!

tl;dr: Your system sucks, mine is better.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

Your comment a few pages back directed at me was all I needed to know about you, so who really cares?

Yeah, know what? I don't like people that think they're rich telling me how to vote, nevermind how tax dollars should be spent.

As it happened anyhow, I don't think you or other posters on here that claim to be left-wing succeeded at all in convincing others to vote... NDP?

For the record I actually don't think that the government should be buying votes....its one of the main reasons I detest the $2.2B given to Quebec that suddenly materialized after the campaign began. It didn't need to happen quite frankly.

Well then why are you so concerned that the cons don't have any major projects for the west?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When Harper talked about Cap and Trade he said that it would not be implemented unless the U.S. implemented a cap and trade strategy and Canada's would be implemented on a sector by sector basis so that it would not harm the Canadian economy.

Isn't that code for "exempting the manufacturing industry in Ontario"?

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

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

I've been asking for PR (or MMP or STV) in other threads, well before this election.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

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.

That's not clear at all. In fact, it's blatantly untrue. The Liberals are closest to the the middle. In fact, they're over the pin. Median over is still a Liberal. The middle is just getting squeezed out from both sides, which is what tends to happen under FPTP (Duverger's Law). If we had fully reached a two-party system, only then would winning an election indicate proximity to the middle (assuming electoral and popular votes match up).

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's not clear at all. In fact, it's blatantly untrue. The Liberals are closest to the the middle. In fact, they're over the pin. Median over is still a Liberal. The middle is just getting squeezed out from both sides, which is what tends to happen under FPTP (Duverger's Law). If we had fully reached a two-party system, only then would winning an election indicate proximity to the middle (assuming electoral and popular votes match up).

You're out of your mind. Even Liberal party supporters said that they moved too far left. And even Lib party members!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Isn't that code for "exempting the manufacturing industry in Ontario"?

Possibly, but does it matter now, the American's are not going to put a cap and trade system in place while their economy is in the pooper so we won't likely see it here.

That's not clear at all. In fact, it's blatantly untrue. The Liberals are closest to the the middle. In fact, they're over the pin. Median over is still a Liberal. The middle is just getting squeezed out from both sides, which is what tends to happen under FPTP (Duverger's Law). If we had fully reached a two-party system, only then would winning an election indicate proximity to the middle (assuming electoral and popular votes match up).

Maybe three elections ago, but not now, look at their platforms over the last two elections, in both elections its been positively left leaning. Based on that the Liberal Party that you love is not center point. In fact it hasn't been center point since they gave Bob Rae a senior position in the party leadership.