I am glad that they won this election personally, but ultimately the liberal party has always shown that they are a party that is extremely pompous and self interested. They will most definitely put the future of their party above the needs or interests of canadians, as they have time and time again. Even though they know it would essentially lock the conservatives in a closet, they won't do it because it removes their easiest path to holding power.
I disagree with this statement. If anything, I think the Liberal party is the most fluid of the parties in adapting to fill the will of the people of the day. That does make them pompous but Trudeau won in 2015 after the Liberals almost died in 2011 based on tracking to the will of Canadians. And for his first 6 years I think he did a good job of that.
They just won this election by putting in a leader who appears to pivot and move to the right, or at least moved to a more pragmatic style. Which is what the majority of Canadians want.
There are a lot of missteps, but of all the parties, the Liberals are the ones most willing to shift their position to meet the moods of Canadians.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Doesn't add up as the fringe parties/independents got some popular votes but no seats.
Edited to add: the bigger problem is that fringe parties that get no votes because they have no chance will start getting seats. Under proportional represenation I'd expect fringe parties (communist, Christian heritage) to get the odd seat, but more worryingly single-issue parties would as well (eg Pro Life Party)
That's not a problem with Democracy, its a feature. If there are enough people who support these parties, then they should have a voice.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
Electoral reform should maybe be sent to the senate to figure out, and have all parties bound to the outcome after it is put to Canadians. Keep it at a distance form elected politicians. I know, I know, partisan, un-elected blah blah, but I don't see any other workable solutions being offered up.
Electoral reform should maybe be sent to the senate to figure out, and have all parties bound to the outcome after it is put to Canadians. Keep it at a distance form elected politicians. I know, I know, partisan, un-elected blah blah, but I don't see any other workable solutions being offered up.
Electoral reform is probably a good Idea, but the hard part is getting to something that a lot of people like.
I've been somewhat enamored with the idea of electing the house by a most acceptable choice system, where electors are allowed to select as many candidates as they want, and they simply do not select any candidate they find unacceptable, and you could theoretically see a nominee win an election with 70%-60%-30%.... in some of these split vote ridings.
Then moving to a senate by sortation, where the most senior 10% of the senate is retired annually, and the seats are refilled by randomly selecting any citizen who opt into the sortation selection, for terms of about 10 years. I also think there would be some efficacy to weighting the selection to demographic levels, where being a member of a group that is currently under-represented in senate demographically increases your odds of being selected slightly. (age, sex, race, income prior to selection, net worth, education level, province of residence... not sure what others?)
I like the idea of having the senate as a more representative/ popularly selected body, that might have a little bit more legitimacy to act that our current senate has. But still being a slower moving and more stable institution than the every 2-4 year house. *Popularly, as in from the populous, not as in by popular acclaim, rather than a senate of the elites that we currently have.
I like the idea of having two legislative bodies that are selected in very different ways, to break up what ever political trends start to prevail over time.
I like that the sortation as a method reduces the risk of populism.
I like that most acceptable choice voting maintains the idea of local representation, but also goes to reducing strategic voting and making sure parties have to play nice with eachother a bit by needing to be the 2nd / 3rd choice.
Doesn't add up as the fringe parties/independents got some popular votes but no seats.
Edited to add: the bigger problem is that fringe parties that get no votes because they have no chance will start getting seats. Under proportional represenation I'd expect fringe parties (communist, Christian heritage) to get the odd seat, but more worryingly single-issue parties would as well (eg Pro Life Party)
Mixed-member proportional representation does not eliminate the riding seats. What it does is add more seats that select members based on a popular vote. "In typical MMP systems, voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party."
It is very hard to use the data from the last election to determine how people would vote in a MMPR system. I might support the local Liberal representative because the NDP doesn't have a chance to win the riding but then vote for the NDP or Green party with the second half of my vote because it will actually contribute to them getting a seat.
Or, if we have an election like the one we just witnessed, everyone might double up their votes and you would see the Liberals win their 169 ridings and then also get the most proportional representation seats based on getting 8.5M votes. In that situation they would have the most to gain and might have a majority government now.
Either way, people are frustrated with the current "first past the post" system and this is widely agreed to be the best democratic system that humans have thought up. Going to a MMPR system would do more to enable everyone to have a vote that counts, which would also help people in the West feel like the election is not necessarily done once Ontario and Quebec are done voting. It would also help people who live in a riding where their party cannot win but their proportional vote can help.
Doesn't add up as the fringe parties/independents got some popular votes but no seats.
Edited to add: the bigger problem is that fringe parties that get no votes because they have no chance will start getting seats. Under proportional represenation I'd expect fringe parties (communist, Christian heritage) to get the odd seat, but more worryingly single-issue parties would as well (eg Pro Life Party)
Thanks for this. What about a minimum % of votes before you get a seat? 5%, 10% or some calculated number, not sure how that would work.
Or, if we have an election like the one we just witnessed, everyone might double up their votes and you would see the Liberals win their 169 ridings and then also get the most proportional representation seats based on getting 8.5M votes. In that situation they would have the most to gain and might have a majority government now.
This is a good point and could still result in vote-splitting. I think to ensure representation at both the federal and regional levels, you'd probably want to split the House, consolidate the ridings and then have 2 MPs per riding. Have 1 MP be elected via FPtP or STV, and then have another MP assigned from the list of candidates, based on some formula from the national vote.
Maybe you take the NDP's national vote and begin distributing assigned MPs to the ridings where they received their highest vote shares or something.
I think that's the gist of this method, but my math education went out the window a long time ago and I don't totally understand the formula.
Only parties that reach any one of three thresholds stipulated by section 77 of the Folketing (Parliamentary) Elections Act—winning at least one constituency seat; obtaining at least the Hare quota (valid votes in province/number of constituency seats in province) in two of the three provinces; or obtaining at least 2% of the national vote—may compete for compensatory seats.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I disagree with this statement. If anything, I think the Liberal party is the most fluid of the parties in adapting to fill the will of the people of the day. That does make them pompous but Trudeau won in 2015 after the Liberals almost died in 2011 based on tracking to the will of Canadians. And for his first 6 years I think he did a good job of that.
They just won this election by putting in a leader who appears to pivot and move to the right, or at least moved to a more pragmatic style. Which is what the majority of Canadians want.
There are a lot of missteps, but of all the parties, the Liberals are the ones most willing to shift their position to meet the moods of Canadians.
But are they doing this for the good of the people or to secure their votes to remain in power?
This is a good point and could still result in vote-splitting. I think to ensure representation at both the federal and regional levels, you'd probably want to split the House, consolidate the ridings and then have 2 MPs per riding. Have 1 MP be elected via FPtP or STV, and then have another MP assigned from the list of candidates, based on some formula from the national vote.
Maybe you take the NDP's national vote and begin distributing assigned MPs to the ridings where they received their highest vote shares or something.
I think that's the gist of this method, but my math education went out the window a long time ago and I don't totally understand the formula.
For me the answer is that the proportional part of the mixed-member proportional representation system needs to be national. Making it regional is a mistake, especially in a regionally diverse country like Canada, as it makes it easier to have single-issue regional groups like the Bloc earn more seats.
Using the popular vote helps to fix the issue where the Bloc and NDP have the similar number of votes across the country but the Bloc has triple the seats because our system is 100% riding based. Once you set the threshold (5% is a good option) then all parties that hit that threshold get at least 1 seat.
But the "mixed" part of the system is that you need to put everyone in the same house. Whether you are elected via a riding or from the proportional vote, you need to put the representatives into the same house to have the system accomplish it's goal of best representing the people.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Theres always the old reliable 'Trial by Combat' method, win and youre in. Elections wouldnt cost money...ticket sales and subscription streaming could cover the cost.
Theres always the old reliable 'Trial by Combat' method, win and youre in. Elections wouldnt cost money...ticket sales and subscription streaming could cover the cost.
Have you seen all of the old men and chuds that run for the CPC? They'd win like 6 seats.
Theres always the old reliable 'Trial by Combat' method, win and youre in. Elections wouldnt cost money...ticket sales and subscription streaming could cover the cost.
I still sometimes laugh about the time Ezra Levant organized a charity boxing match with the expectation that disgraced Conservative senator Patrick Brazeau would beat the crap out of Justin Trudeau...only for Trudeau to pull the old Uno reverse card and completely dominate the fight and win by TKO.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I still sometimes laugh about the time Ezra Levant organized a charity boxing match with the expectation that disgraced Conservative senator Patrick Brazeau would beat the crap out of Justin Trudeau...only for Trudeau to pull the old Uno reverse card and completely dominate the fight and win by TKO.
Yeah, for all the "nice hair/pretty boy" comments, your average conservative voter would probably get dummied by Trudeau, or run away like they did with Singh.
If you end up with a hung parliament that can't respond to issues without becoming beholden to special interests/regional issues that is a problem.
By adding fairness you have the very real potential to make the government less effective.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 04-30-2025 at 09:55 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Yeah, for all the "nice hair/pretty boy" comments, your average conservative voter would probably get dummied by Trudeau, or run away like they did with Singh.
It happened every so often during his time as PM; this is one of my favourite clips.
"I'm more PPC!"
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BigThief For This Useful Post:
I think it'd help the Liberals overall and no doubt they have a majority right now and unless the Conservatives shift to the centre, the Liberals would have a majority forever.
Edit: this comes across as me wanting the Liberals forever, when what I want is the CPC to move centre, same with the NDP as they could form government too
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Everyone should get to vote on the exact type of government they prefer. I'd like a strong Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power, Conservatives in official opposition, and a mediocre BQ. PPC eliminated. Token Green.
Then you feed all that into some magical program that takes all Canadian's choices into account and gives us the closest. Voila.
I only jest about this because the news often says things like "Canadians have chosen a strong Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power and Conservatives in official opposition." No, we didn't choose that. That's what we got but at no time was that a choice we had to select. So lets try making it a choice.
