Canadian Federal Election 2015

[Whiskey16]

But I think most people don't understand that, and not balancing sets a terrible example.

Let's get this straight, cbrunny is holding Trudeau to task for an economic plan for roughly $10B deficits over 3 years for infrastructure investment? Glossing over the near decade long deficits by Harper and apparently holding his government as the relative better stewards of the economy??

So 'not balancing [the budget] sets a terrible example?' Then take the Harper government to task for their fiscal and managerial incompetence.

A bit out of date as from April, but to the point:

ipolitics:
No matter how you add it up, Harper’s fiscal record is a catastrophe

In 2006-07, the Conservatives inherited a [Liberal] surplus of $13.8 billion — which they turned into a deficit of $5.8 billion within two years.

Since then, they have been in deficit each and every year. In 2009-10, the deficit reached its peak of 3.5 per cent of GDP. They are desperate now to show a surplus in 2015-16 — one surplus in nine years. Since Harper was elected, the federal debt has increased by over $150 billion, wiping out the reduction in federal debt achieved under Chretien and Martin. Not much to boast about there.

Joe Oliver has announced that the government will introduce balanced budget legislation. But legislation won’t keep a government out of the red if it lacks the political will to do so.

What about the government’s commitment to economic growth and job creation? Who hasn’t heard about the 1.2 million jobs created since “the depths of the recession”? Again — time for a reality check.

The figure — 1.2 million — is correct, but almost meaningless. It certainly doesn’t describe the performance of the economy since 2006 and the labour market situation in Canada. Since 2006, economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7 per cent per year.
In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4 per cent per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created — less than in 2013.
At the end of 2014, the unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The labour force participation rate was lower than in 2008. The employment rate (the percentage of the adult population employed) was lower than at the end of 2008. The youth unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The share of total employment made up of full-time jobs was less than in 2008 — and the quality of jobs had sunk to its lowest level in a quarter of a century.

Then there’s Oliver’s claim that his government has put money back in the hands of Canadians through its commitment to reducing taxes. This government has definitely cut taxes for high-income, single-earner families with children under 18 — just 15 per cent of all families. They’ve been very good to families with teenage children who — somehow — still need ‘child care’. They’ve been generous to families who can afford to put their kids in sports leagues and summer camps, and they’ve cut taxes for high-income seniors who can split their pension income with a spouse.

The government has announced it will double the contribution limits for Tax-Free Savings Accounts, despite research by the PBO and others indicating this will — again — overwhelmingly benefit high-income Canadians and leave a growing unfunded liability to be paid for by all Canadians in the future. Oliver and Harper claim to be doing this for our grandchildren. Somehow we don’t think they’ll be grateful.

All of this, of course, came after the government’s biggest and most foolish tax cut — the two point cut in the GST which every economist warned them was a terrible idea. Sure enough, it was a major factor in putting the government into deficit.

The key thing to remember here is that these tax cuts accomplished nothing for the economy. None of them contributed to economic growth or job creation. They certainly didn’t contribute to tax fairness.

Numbers don’t lie, but people do. It’s one thing to spin your failures as successes — it’s another thing entirely to try to present a decade of fiscal failure as one long triumph. The journalists going into the budget lockup will have their work cut out for them, trying to separate the Harper government’s fiscal fantasies from the true record of the past ten years.

 

[cbrunny]

cbrunny, state to us how many federal Harper budgets have been balanced..... How many recessions under their watch?

Answering those points can destroy any credibility for Conservatives as being good fiscal stewards deserving to hold their course.

Their economic record is rotten. Massive increases in federal debt load, a decades locked trade deal with China opening our state to their corporations without any reciprocity, destruction of federal research and development at the National Research Council negating future avenues for home controlled scientific and economic growth, etc...

No valid defence for this Harper government to retain governance.

No valid continued defence for a fringe consituent party to continue in power against the overwhelming majority of Canadians' opposition.

Toss this underservingly corrupt and immoral government. I don't care who, as anyone else between the NDP and Liberals demonstrate to have the majority of support by Canadians unlike Harper's government. Legislate electoral reform so that no MP will ever again attain a seat without support from the majority of their constituents. No more vote splitting of the majority of Canadian desires and permitting a fringe party such as Harper's to slide into disrepresentative power.

If a .1% recession is important to you, that's your business. Some day that will make a great Trivial Pursuit question. As for the 08 recession - the one where literally every country on earth fell into recession - well, personally I don't hold Harper to account for the economy of Earth. It obviously isn't good. Suggesting that Harper is responsible for the world decline in oil prices is also a waste of time. Suggesting that it is Harper's doing alone that has resulted in a largely oil based economy in Canada is also a waste of time. Oil was discovered off the coast of Newfoundland in 1979. In Alberta the oil sands project started in the 70s, if not sooner. It would be politically irresponsible to hold Harper accountable for discovering that oil is valuable in the 1970s and then somehow secretly convincing the next 25 years of governments to develop that industry in unethical ways.

I would have much preferred to see little to no deficit spending from 08 through to 14, forcing private and public companies to re-tool into the 21st century. We could have seen a giant push in green energy or other sustainable initiatives. Instead we didn't because Harper chose to focus those efforts instead on rebuilding an oil based economy - a gamble that worked in terms of improving the status quo of the time, but has subsequently failed due to the drop in oil prices across the world in the context of a Canadian economy that is too dependent on oil. But, to expect that the Liberals or the NDP would have not spent in deficit is ignorant. There is absolutely no doubt that both parties would have done so.

Whiskey, you continue to discredit yourself when you claim the CPC is a fringe party. Nanos is polling the CPC at higher than the NDP (31.5% vs 23.1% here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elec...ccessible-vote-drops-nanos-tracking-1.2596904). Nanos polls the Liberals at slightly higher 35.0%. By your logic then, the NDP is also a fringe party - far more fringe than the CPC. Likewise, the distinction between fringe and not-fringe must rest somewhere between 31.6% and 35.0% otherwise Canada would have three fringe parties. The mere notion that the CPC is fringe is factually incorrect. You discredit yourself time and time again.

 

[cbrunny]

Let's get this straight, cbrunny is holding Trudeau to task for an economic plan for roughly $10B deficits over 3 years for infrastructure investment? Glossing over the near decade long deficits by Harper and apparently holding his government as the relative better stewards of the economy??

So 'not balancing [the budget] sets a terrible example?' Then take the Harper government to task for their fiscal and managerial incompetence.

A bit out of date as from April, but to the point:

I don't see why voting for a party in this election means I agree with literally every thing that party has done from it's birth until today. If that's your view of politics, well I feel bad for you. I don't agree with major planks of all three parties platforms, just as I don't agree with major policy that many governments have put in place regardless of if I voted for them or not.

Trudeau ought to be held to task for his plan. It isn't a good plan, period. It is irresponsible for a government to spend in deficit in reasonable economic times. It is irresponsible to ignore that a government sets the example for the entire population. Add to that CPP adjustments - bailing out Kathleen Wynne's disaster of a plan in Ontario, rolling back the TFSA, raising EI premiums, his complete lack of financial experience, cabinet experience, and governance experience of any kind - he is just not for me. An overwhelmingly inexperienced leader overseeing a fiscally irresponsible plan is not for me.

 

[Whiskey16]

Whiskey, you continue to discredit yourself when you claim the CPC is a fringe party. Nanos is polling the CPC at higher than the NDP (31.5% vs 23.1% here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elec...ccessible-vote-drops-nanos-tracking-1.2596904). Nanos polls the Liberals at slightly higher 35.0%. By your logic then, the NDP is also a fringe party - far more fringe than the CPC. Likewise, the distinction between fringe and not-fringe must rest somewhere between 31.6% and 35.0% otherwise Canada would have three fringe parties. The mere notion that the CPC is fringe is factually incorrect. You discredit yourself time and time again.

No, cbrunny. Fringe.

The NDP and Liberals have plenty of cross-over support that consistently returns the majority of electorate support that would support either forming government -- unlike only ever a blatant minority of Canadians supporting a Conservative.

60-70% of Canadians as for an NDP or Liberal government as opposed to the current election maximum of barely over 30% for general constituent support for the Conservatives.

By significantly by statistic, that is a fringe and outlier in the Canadian democracy, and by no democratic right (except the contemporary and outmoded first-past-the-post voting system) should have the right to govern.

I have already long explained this valid rational to you for the fact of why Harper Conservatives are a fringe party -- consistent minority support of and lack of moderation due to extremism to whip up their base. cbrunny, you dismiss such reality out of argumentative bluster.

 

[cbrunny]

No, cbrunny. Fringe.

The NDP and Liberals have plenty of cross-over support that consistently returns the majority of electorate support that would support either forming government -- unlike only ever a blatant minority of Canadians supporting a Conservative.

60-70% of Canadians as for an NDP or Liberal government as opposed to the current election maximum of barely over 30% for general constituent support for the Conservatives.

By significantly by statistic, that is a fringe and outlier in the Canadian democracy, and by no democratic right (except the contemporary and outmoded first-past-the-post voting system) should have the right to govern.

I have already long explained this valid rational to you for the fact of why Harper Conservatives are a fringe party -- consistent minority support of and lack of moderation due to extremism to whip up their base. cbrunny, you dismiss such reality out of argumentative bluster.

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (31.5% + 35.0%) 66.5% of Canadians do not want an NDP government.

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (31.5% + 23.1%) 54.6% of Canadians do not want a Liberal government.

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (23.1% + 35.0%) 58.1% of Canadians do not want a Conservative government.

It is factually incorrect to claim that any of the three major parties are fringe, but by your very own definition and logic, the NDP is even more of a fringe party.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim the Conservatives are a fringe party. Your consistent denial of this most basic fact wholly and completely discredits you.

 

[cbrunny]

http://business.financialpost.com/p...d-not-handle-500-increase-in-mortgage-payment

Nearly one in six Canadians would not be able to handle a $500 increase in their monthly mortgage payments, a new survey from the Bank of Montreal suggests.

According to the bank, 16 per cent of respondents said they would not be able to afford such an increase, while more than a quarter, or roughly 27 per cent, would need to review their budget.
Another 26 per cent said they would be concerned, but could probably handle it.

Such an increase would be generated in the case of a three percentage point hike in interest rates — from 2.75 per cent to 5.75 per cent — on a $300,000 mortgage with a 25-year amoritization period.

 

[cbrunny]

http://lispop.ca/seat-projection/federal/2015-10-06/momentum-shifts-liberals-ndp-slips-quebec

Conservative: 123
Liberal: 113
NDP: 98
Bloc: 3
Green: 1

 

[Whiskey16]

Cbrunny, I made a small mistake in my previous post: it is 60-70% of Liberals or NDP voters that would support governance led by the other party.

This returns either the Liberals of the NDP with support from greater than majority of the electorate.

A fringe is defined by a statistical minority and/or aberration. Harper's Conservative Party of Canada cannot and will not attain a majority of electoral support, maxing out at slightly over 30% of the electorate, and without it being an alternatively desirable option by the vast majority of the electorate.

cbrunny, play all the semantic and disruptive denialist games you desire - I'm supported by facts.

Facts are, a representative democracy is best served of the government is supported by the majority of the electorate. Harper's Conservatives do not. The Cons are at the fringe of the 3 major parties in terms of Canadians interest and support.

 

[cbrunny]

Cbrunny, I made a small mistake in my previous post: it is 60-70% of Liberals or NDP voters that would support governance led by the other party.

This returns either the Liberals of the NDP with support from greater than majority of the electorate.

A fringe is defined by a statistical minority and/or aberration. Harper's Conservative Party of Canada cannot and will not attain a majority of electoral support, maxing out at slightly over 30% of the electorate, and without it being an alternatively desirable option by the vast majority of the electorate.

cbrunny, play all the semantic and disruptive denialist games you desire - I'm supported by facts.

Facts are, a representative democracy is best served of the government is supported by the majority of the electorate. Harper's Conservatives do not. The Cons are at the fringe of the 3 major parties in terms of Canadians interest and support.

You're going to need to drop a source to back up a claim like that. You'll also need to define extremely clearly what is meant by "support governance."

I'd be very curious to see:
- The percentage of Liberal or Conservative supporters that would support governance led by the NDP
- The percentage of Conservative and NDP supporters that would support governance led by the Liberals

Only if the percentages of the other two groups are very different does your argument even begin to float. Even then, it is still hamstrung by the simple fact that 30% is not marginal and absolutely cannot be considered fringe in that context alone.

If your income dropped by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on your standard of living?
If the cost of your house increased by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on the amount of property tax you have to pay?
If the distance from your house to your job increased by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on the amount of gas you have to burn?
If the Canucks scored 30% more goals this season than last, would it have a marginal impact on their win-loss record?
If the population of Canada dropped by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on national revenue?
If your weight changed in either direction by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on your health?
If the interest rate increased by 30%, would it have a marginal impact on the economy?

30% is not marginal. It is a minority, but it is distant from marginal. It simply cannot possibly be considered a marginal amount of anything.

The definition you are using for "fringe" is quite simply wrong. By your definition, a party with 49.9% support would be considered fringe while the another with 50.1% support would be considered mainstream. Even if we abide by your deeply flawed defintion, all three major parties poll under 50%, meaning all three major parties poll in the minority, meaning all three major parties are, by your own definition, fringe parties. It's just wrong. You can call it denialism if you want, but there are no facts in the universe that support a claim that "a statistical minority" equals fringe, not to mention a statistical minority of a 1/3rd proportion.

You claim that

Harper's Conservative Party of Canada cannot and will not attain a majority of electoral support, maxing out at slightly over 30% of the electorate

which will not happen for any of the three major parties this election. Likewise,

and without it being an alternatively desirable option by the vast majority of the electorate

which is also true of each of the three major parties when compared to the other two parties.

No party in this election has the support of the majority of Canadians.

 

[cbrunny]

That's all saying nothing of the fact that claiming 30% of people hold "fringe" political preferences is equal to dismissing them outright. This alone goes against what you're advocating for. You're suggesting that electoral reform will better represent Canadians. At the core of your argument is the notion that it is good to consider the opinions of everyone. Claiming 30% of Canadians hold "fringe" political preferences and then dismissing them outright is completely hypocritical of your stance on electoral reform.

 

[Whiskey16]

At the core of your argument is the notion that it is good to consider the opinions of everyone. Claiming 30% of Canadians hold "fringe" political preferences and then dismissing them outright is completely hypocritical of your stance on electoral reform.

No, you're misrepresentating what I stated and twisted around into the opposite.

A government can certainly choose to best represent all Canadians.

It is the election where voters choose their representative. I do not believe a minority can be able to choose representation for all, particularly when the majority would and do not choose such a choice.

30% of the electorate should not have the ability to overide the desire of the majority of the electorate. The current first-past-the-post system enables this with vote splitting.

A majority of NDP and Liberals will opt for the other party to lead government in preference to Conservative rule.

Due to the relative extremism of the Harper branding of government, that party lacks the grandstand potential of voters from other parties. As such, the Conservatives choose and do only represent the interests of a minority of Canadians - hence, the relative fringe of the electorate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A pretty good list of issues with the Harper govt.

The Tyee's full, updated list of 70 Harper government assaults on democracy and the law.

Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled

"Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have racked up dozens of serious abuses of power since forming government in 2006. From scams to smears, monkey-wrenching opponents to intimidating public servants like an Orwellian gorilla, some offences are criminal, others just offend human decency.

Last week we published 59 examples in two parts, and asked our readers to suggest any we may have missed. Among the many suggestions we gratefully received, we concluded that 11 more meet the criteria for "abuses of power." Today we compile all 70 items into one omnibus of abuse by the Stephen Harper government."

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/

 

[cbrunny]

No, you're misrepresentating what I stated and twisted around into the opposite.

A government can certainly choose to best represent all Canadians.

It is the election where voters choose their representative. I do not believe a minority can be able to choose representation for all, particularly when the majority would and do not choose such a choice.

30% of the electorate should not have the ability to overide the desire of the majority of the electorate. The current first-past-the-post system enables this with vote splitting.

A majority of NDP and Liberals will opt for the other party to lead government in preference to Conservative rule.

Due to the relative extremism of the Harper branding of government, that party lacks the grandstand potential of voters from other parties. As such, the Conservatives choose and do only represent the interests of a minority of Canadians - hence, the relative fringe of the electorate.

You can't just say things like that and expect anyone to believe them. Source that.

It isn't fringe. Period. It is different, but it isn't fringe.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Trust No One <snicker>

http://www.reportyourneighbour.ca/

 

[Victorian Gray]

#BarbaricCulturalPractices <another snicker>

https://twitter.com/search?q=#BarbaricCulturalPractices&src=tyah

 

[Victorian Gray]

A local columnist (Vancouver Sun) puts some perspective on 'barbaric practices':

Daphne Bramham: Conservatives, polygamy and cultural relativism

Tories want to establish tip line for ‘barbaric cultural practices’ yet they wilfully ignore what is happening in Bountiful:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...vatives+polygamy+cultural/11413382/story.html

 

[Red Squirrel]

With this election we really need to look past the economy, and look at our own liberties. Harper is constantly stripping our liberties and making life for the middle class harder and harder by catering to only the rich and the megacorporations. He's constantly doing things that kill jobs such as the TFW program. He is also a disaster for the environment. Bill C-51, The TPP, Bill C 24 I think it is? Whatever one that makes it so you can easily be deported if your parents were not born here. That's just naming a few of the very bad things he's done against the people.

Even if Trudeau or Mulcair were to ruin our economy I would rather see them reverse some of the evil stuff Harper has done and hopefully fix the economy later down the line, than to have Harper who will continue to do barbaric changes to the country.

What's scary is that a lot of people actually still support Harper despite all the horrific things he has done. Facebook comments make me want to not live on this planet anymore. It's scary the amount of people who still defend him.

Let's just hope that at the end of all this he ends up not coming in. We're Just not ready(tm) to put up with yet another Harper term.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A couple of critical analysis pieces on 'barbarous practices' if anyone is interested.

The barbaric cultural practice of election pronouncements

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892

Conservative Party moves beyond the pale

http://induecourse.ca/conservative-party-moves-beyond-the-pale/

 

[Whiskey16]

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (31.5% + 35.0%) 66.5% of Canadians do not want an NDP government.

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (31.5% + 23.1%) 54.6% of Canadians do not want a Liberal government.

By your logic, Nanos is reporting that (23.1% + 35.0%) 58.1% of Canadians do not want a Conservative government.

cbrunny, you argue with nonsense. You are misrepresenting the truth of my statement that the majority of NDP or Liberals supports would vote for either party.

Your argument above is asinine, as in no way is there either absolute transference of voter support between all parties to another and neither their absolute and unmovable support for all parties.

The facts are that the Conservatives have a relatively solid base with minimal room for growth. Their only path to victory is to split the opposition vote in the majority of ridings. In contrast, the NDP and Liberals share a significant proportion of support that can and will transfer a vote between either party. As those two parties are politically far more similar, it is quite rational to see movement of voters between either party.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim the Conservatives are a fringe party. Your consistent denial of this most basic fact wholly and completely discredits you.

No cbrunny, you only discredit yourself. In relation to the two other major parties, here's an easy graphic to demonstrate how far out as a political outlier Harper's Conservatives are:



As the Harper Conservatives can only ever electorally peak at a little over 30% of the vote while goals of the voters for the opposition often overlap and will transfer between either party for a majority of national support, then yes, Harper's polarising extremism has made the Conservatives a fringe party that only has a notable minority of support and therefore democratically undeserving of forming a government to rule against the desires of the majority.

The problem is that our electoral system is broken. The first-past-the-post balloting is antiquated and intended for a time when there were only two major parties. As the majority of Canadians are strongly opposed to Harper's governance, strategic voting due to shared interests is a fact. cbrunny, you no have basis to discredit reality just because you feel differently.

cbrunny, are you going again whine and demand that I "can't say things like that?" Sorry, bud, but you've already boasted about putting me on the forum ignore list, then had pussy fits with name-calling. Now, when still facing rational and factual rebuttals, you complain that you don't want to hear it?

A majority of NDP and Liberals will opt for the other party to lead government in preference to Conservative rule.

You can't just say things like that and expect anyone to believe them. Source that.

I'm not you cbrunny -- I'm not tossing out empty bluster. Throughout this thread, I have supported everything I have presented. Why would I stop now?

Liberals, NDP to vie for voters planning to vote strategically

The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Sep. 11, 2015



While the Conservative support is solid, a rolling nightly poll conducted by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests Mr. Harper&#8217;s party does not have much room to grow. But many Liberal supporters say they would consider the New Democrats. And many NDP supporters say they would vote Liberal.

..

&#8220;It&#8217;s quite unprecedented that more than half of committed party voters for a political party would consider another party,&#8221; said Nik Nanos, the president of the polling company. &#8220;It all comes down to who is second. If the Liberals are second in a riding, they are going to want to cannibalize NDP support. Where the NDP are second, they are going to try to cannibalize the Liberals.&#8221;

There you go cbrunny, you just don't want the truth.

 

[cbrunny]

The facts are that the Conservatives have a relatively solid base with minimal room for growth. Their only path to victory is to split the opposition vote in the majority of ridings. In contrast, the NDP and Liberals share a significant proportion of support that can and will transfer a vote between either party. As those two parties are politically far more similar, it is quite rational to see movement of voters between either party.

From that statement, you need:
- A source that shows that "Conservatives have a relatively solid base with minimal room for growth"
- A source that says "Their only path to victory is to split the opposition vote in the majority of ridings" AND that this is somehow different from other parties (hint: it isn't)
- A source that says "The NDP and Liberals share a significant proportion of support that can and will transfer a vote between either party"

It can be the same source, but you can't just make up stuff. All parties rely on vote splitting to one degree or another. The only reason it is more significant to the Cons is that they are the only party on the right of the political spectrum, and the left is crowded with three large parties, two of which have a chance of forming government. I'm not blind to this, but that doesn't prove anything that you're suggesting it does. All parties rely on vote splitting to one degree or another because they are forced to rely on vote splitting. That's how a multi-party system works. Basically your argument is that the NDP and Liberals are the same party, which is complete factual nonsense. In this election they even have extremely different platforms. They may occupy the same general regions of the political spectrum, very broadly speaking and relative to the position of the Conservatives, but that doesn't make them interchangeable as you are suggesting.

I will give you that the NDP and Liberals are more similar than the NDP compared to the Cons AND the Liberals compared to the Cons.

It is not irrational to see movement from any party to any other party. If this kind of movement were irrational, every election would only vary insofar as people died and other people turned 18. It is more likely that someone would shift support from one party to the party that occupies space closest to their political spectrum, but that's a theoretical argument. Show me some facts.

No cbrunny, you only discredit yourself. In relation to the two other major parties, here's an easy graphic to demonstrate how far out as a political outlier Harper's Conservatives are:

The CBC Vote Compass has been largely accused of being biased in the past (https://www.google.ca/search?q=cbc+...4.3287j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8). I see no reason to assume that it isn't biased now, especially when it has a financial incentive to ensure that the Conservatives do not win. Both the NDP and Liberal parties are on record as having promised hundreds of millions of dollars to the CBC. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-arts-culture-funding-1.3238369 and http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-arts-cbc-1.3257244)

Further, all that graph shows is that the Conservatives are different from not-Conservatives. It doesn't show anything about who is willing to shift votes from one party to the next. That graphic does nothing to support your argument. You need to demonstrate two things:
1. That the majority of NDP and Liberal supporters are ready, willing, and able to shift their support to one or the other party.
2. That 30% is small. Good luck with that one.

As the Harper Conservatives can only ever electorally peak at a little over 30% of the vote while goals of the voters for the opposition often overlap and will transfer between either party for a majority of national support, then yes, Harper's polarising extremism has made the Conservatives a fringe party that only has a notable minority of support and therefore democratically undeserving of forming a government to rule against the desires of the majority.

What percentage of the popular vote do you think is common in a Canadian national election? You should study this chart: http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-popular-vote-results/

It very clearly shows that almost never ever in recent history has the governing party received more than 50% of the popular vote. The last time it happened was in 1984 for the Conservatives. The Liberals haven't had that outcome since 1953.

"A little over 30%" apparently means more than 36.3% - the figure when the CPC received their first minority mandate. In 2011 the Conservatives pulled in 39.6% of the popular vote. The NDP and Liberals combined for 49.53% - LESS THAN HALF and yet you consider not-NDP/Liberal marginal. (I'm not arguing the current system is fair. I'm arguing that saying the CPC is fringe is factually incorrect no matter how you slice it).

As the majority of Canadians are strongly opposed to Harper's governance

assuming you mean because of polling data that I have supplied in this thread, I'll agree

strategic voting due to shared interests is a fact.

I don't know what this means. The shared interest of having not-Harper? If you can find an academic source that clearly states that strategic voting has a legitimate impact, I'll be shocked. The strategic voting movement obviously exists, but there isn't any coherent, widespread, well received message on a riding by riding basis that actually allows it to form into a true functional thing. I suspect not enough people buy in to the idea because people care more about who they are voting for than who they are not voting for. I'm not arguing that strategic voting doesn't exist. I'm arguing that it's existence proves nothing about the degree to which the Conservatives are or are not marginal.

cbrunny, you no have basis to discredit reality just because you feel differently.

Whiskey16, you have no basis to discredit reality just because you feel differently.

cbrunny, are you going again whine and demand that I "can't say things like that?" Sorry, bud, but you've already boasted about putting me on the forum ignore list, then had pussy fits with name-calling. Now, when still facing rational and factual rebuttals, you complain that you don't want to hear it?

Joke post? Must be, because as I've proven with real facts time and time again, your statements about the Conservatives being fringe are factually incorrect. Just as I've done yet again here.

I'm not you cbrunny -- I'm not tossing out empty bluster. Throughout this thread, I have supported everything I have presented. Why would I stop now?

Still waiting on those sources, btw.

PS - that link you provided that actually looks like it might be credible is a dead link. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...anning-to-vote-strategically/article26343579/

It is also a month old and does nothing to prove that the Conservatives are a fringe party. You still have to somehow prove that 30% - the figure in the most recent Nanos survey - is small.

 

[cbrunny]

http://www.votetogether.ca/pages/localpolling/

This suggests that 61% of Liberal and 61% of NDP supporters would be willing to change their vote to defeat their local Conservative candidate. Note: this poll was taken in only 31 ridings that were the most likely to have this sort of strategic voting take place. Poll was funded by donations and is targeted specifically at strategic voting.

So let's take a look at what this actually means.

The most recent Nanos poll has the breakdown as follows:

Liberal 35.0%
CPC 31.5%
NDP 23.1%

Let's pretend we have 1000 electors that all vote. Based on the Nanos poll, that means people vote like this:

Liberals - 350 votes
CPC - 315 votes
NDP - 231 votes

= 896 votes. For the sake of this discussion, we'll distribute the remaining 104 over the three parties proportionally.

Liberals = 391
CPC = 351
NDP = 258

There is some minor rounding error on which I've favoured the Liberals and NDP.

So we know a few things from this example. First, we know that if there is no strategic voting, the Liberals win. We know the CPC comes second and the NDP comes third.

Let's assume that 61% of the NDP votes Liberal:

Liberals = 548
CPC = 351
NDP = 101

We know a few more things here. First, we know that the Liberals win. We know the CPC comes second and the NDP comes third.

Let's assume that 61% of the Liberals vote NDP:

NDP = 497
CPC = 351
Liberals = 152

We know a few more things here. First, we know that the NDP wins. We know the CPC comes second and the NDP comes third.

Let's assume that 61% of NDP supporters vote Liberal and 61% of Liberal supporters vote NDP:

CPC: 351
NDP: 339
Liberals: 310

We know a few more things here. First, we know that the Conservatives win. We know the NDP comes second and the Liberals come third.

Let's assume that 30.5% of NDP supporters vote Liberal and 30.5% of Liberal supporters vote NDP:

CPC = 351
Liberals = 350
NDP = 299

We know a few more things here. First, we know that the Conservatives win. We know the Liberals come second and the NDP comes third.



This is obviously all hypothetical. It also demonstrates the complexity of strategic voting without sufficient information. It's not meant to be concrete of anything except that there needs to be a coherent, clear, distinct message with dramatic voter buy-in on all relevant party sides in order for it to have an actual impact on the riding's outcome.

It also demonstrates something else that is important. Strategic voting has nothing to do with proving that the Conservatives are a fringe party.

In example 1, where there is no strategic voting, Conservatives receive 35.1% of the vote compared to Not-Conservatives receiving 64.9%. Is 35.1% marginal? In this example, Liberals receive 39.1% and NDP receives 25.8%. Given that parties are different from each other, surely if the Conservatives are fringe, the NDP would be the outer edge of fringe.

In example 2, where 61% of NDP vote Liberal, Conservatives receive 35.1% of the vote compared to Not-Conservatives receiving 64.9%. Is 35.1% marginal? In this example, Liberals receive 54.8% and NDP receives 10.1%. Given that parties are different from each other, surely if the Conservatives are fringe, the NDP would be the outer edge of fringe.

In example 3, where 61% of Liberals vote NDP, Conservatives receive 35.1% of the vote compared to Not-Conservatives receiving 64.9%. Is 35.1% marginal? In this example, Liberals receive 15.2% and NDP receives 49.7%. Given that parties are different from each other, surely if the Conservatives are fringe, the Liberals would be the outer edge of fringe.

In example 4, where 61% of Liberals vote NDP and 61% of NDP votes Liberal, Conservatives receive 35.1% of the vote compared to Not-Conservatives receiving 64.9%. Is 35.1% marginal? In this example, Liberals receive 31.0% and NDP receives 33.9%. Given that parties are different from each other, surely if the Conservatives are fringe, both the NDP AND the Liberals would be the outer edge of fringe.

In example 5, where 30.5% of Liberals vote NDP and 30.5% of NDP votes Liberal, Conservatives receive 35.1% of the vote compared to Not-Conservatives receiving 64.9%. Is 35.1% marginal? In this example, Liberals receive 35.0% and NDP receives 29.9%. Given that parties are different from each other, surely if the Conservatives are fringe, the NDP would be the outer edge of fringe while the Liberals would occupy roughly the same degree of fringe as the Conservatives.

 

[Whiskey16]

From that statement, you need:
- A source that shows that "Conservatives have a relatively solid base with minimal room for growth"
- A source that says "Their only path to victory is to split the opposition vote in the majority of ridings" AND that this is somehow different from other parties (hint: it isn't)
- A source that says "The NDP and Liberals share a significant proportion of support that can and will transfer a vote between either party"

Still waiting on those sources, btw.

Can you not read? Lying remains your forte? Damnit man, with quoted and directly supported citations, I backed up all that I said, hours before [my late edit was only for a couple of typos] your post.

PS - that link you provided that actually looks like it might be credible is a dead link. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...anning-to-vote-strategically/article26343579/

Incompetent and disingenuous. No cbrunny, it is quite active. Loaded upon multiple devices:

Liberals, NDP to vie for voters planning to vote strategically

The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Sep. 11, 2015



While the Conservative support is solid, a rolling nightly poll conducted by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests Mr. Harper’s party does not have much room to grow. But many Liberal supporters say they would consider the New Democrats. And many NDP supporters say they would vote Liberal.

..

“It’s quite unprecedented that more than half of committed party voters for a political party would consider another party,” said Nik Nanos, the president of the polling company. “It all comes down to who is second. If the Liberals are second in a riding, they are going to want to cannibalize NDP support. Where the NDP are second, they are going to try to cannibalize the Liberals.”

It is also a month old and does nothing to prove that the Conservatives are a fringe party. You still have to somehow prove that 30% - the figure in the most recent Nanos survey - is small.

That supports all that I've been saying for weeks.... cbrunny, your previous post is demonstrably a waste of argumentative space.

Accept it -- you are wrong. You have been succinctly proven wrong, and have your head so far up your ass that you just lie and move the goal posts rather than admit error.

Supported facts:

• the Conservatives are a political outlier in comparison to the NDP and Liberals
• as only capable of producing a solid minority of voting support, Harper's Conservatives have placed themselves at the margin of politics and are thereby a fringe party governing without the majority of support by Canadians
• Due to their political marginalisation, Harper's Conservatives have little room for growth

Loose pool of NDP/Liberal vote-swappers confound election predictions

globalnews

Pollsters agree the Conservatives, nationally, have the most rock solid base of support. Fully two thirds of Conservative backers in Nanos’s most recent telephone poll said they’re considering only one party. That drops to barely 40 per cent for Liberal leaners and 37 per cent of NDP supporters.


But rock-ribbed Conservatives “can only get so much comfort from that,” said Nanos, because the party’s room for growth also appears limited.

Election 2015: Blue vs. Red; Orange flagging

abacusdata

Accessible Voter Pools
The Liberals now enjoy the largest number (59%) of accessible voters (people who say they would consider voting for a party), followed by the NDP (52%) and the Conservatives at 43%. Since the start of the campaign, the NDP pool has shrunk by 8 points, the Liberal pool has grown 8 points, and the Conservative pool has been pretty stable.

Worth noting is that the number of Quebec voters who would consider the

Liberals is now 48%, and the number who would consider the Conservatives is 30%, unchanged from the last wave. In Ontario, the accessible pool for the Liberals is 67%, up 4 points from our last wave, and 10 points higher than the NDP pool, and 24 points higher than the Conservatives.

• With only a solid yet a minority proportion of the electorate, the Conservatives can only attain governance by having the opposing similar left-leaning parties split the majority of the electorate's vote between them to permit the Cons to again come up the middle
• if a Conservative minority governance, a majority Liberal and NDP coalition is quite plausible and supported by the majority of Canadians and even party members
• unlike Harper's Conservatives, the Liberals and NDP share more than they differ and is why such a majority of Canadians can align with either party
• surveys and polls support that the majority of NDP and Liberal potential voters do consider the possibility of changing to a candidate for the opposing party to deny a Conservative candidate win

cbrunny, you demanded I provide support? Throughout this thread I do. Your last demand? I most certainly did. You gave no justified rational (article not existing or link not working: FALSE; out of date -- 3 weeks old!!) nor logic behind your ignorant dismissal. For the sake of honest and progressive discussion, I've met your challenges. Your turn to demonstrate integrity in citing sources for your position, or standing down.

 

[cbrunny]

You don't really get numbers, do you?

For the last fucking time. [size=+16]30% IS NOT SMALL.[/size]


I am not debating that vote splitting happens. You obviously completely ignored what I had posted regarding popular vote, else you would understand that it is extremely rare for any governing party, minority or majority, to receive more than even 40% of the popular vote. Since 1953 it has happened exactly two times that the 50% mark was breached FOR ANY PARTY. Vote splitting happens to all three parties. Strategic voting happens. That has NOTHING to do with 30% being a small number.

Jesus christ man I even provided evidence that argued AGAINST MY OWN POINTS just to try to hurry up this nonsense. The fact remains that 30% IS NOT SMALL. 30% has never been small. 30% will never be small. It is completely irresponsible, factually incorrect, and discredits you completely to expect ANYONE to actually believe that 30% is small.

 

[Whiskey16]

For the last fucking time. [SIZE=+16]30% IS NOT SMALL.[/SIZE]

??? All of the cited analyses I returned exactly support my statements. cbrunny, you've got nada -- just you throwing yet another a swearing tantrum. So stubborn that context and reality are lost to you No, my positions are validated:

A majority of NDP and Liberals will opt for the other party to lead government in preference to Conservative rule.

You can't just say things like that and expect anyone to believe them. Source that.

I will continue to present what is correct and supported.

You just cannot admit error.......You're back at yelling now that you are so frustrated?

No cbrunny, 30% of a solidified minority without possible growth out of the electorate most certainly IS SMALL (I can do text in CAPS too...) for a portion of the electorate to impose their desires upon the majority of Canadians.

Numbers. 30-40% is not large, it is relatively SMALL, it is not over the healthy representative baseline of a majority.

You asked for proof? I gave you proof that that, unlike the majority of Canadians offering support to either the NDP and Liberals, Harper's politically outlying Conservatives are unable to attain the majority of support from the electorate.

CONTEXT cbrunny:

As Harper has marginalised his party to such a partisan extreme, that relative to the opposing other two major parties who either have the majority of Canadian support, the Conservative Party of Canada has cornered itself to only attain a solid minority of electorate support and has thereby placed itself at the political margins -- the FRINGE, as I will continue to state it.

Thankfully -- despite your inept objection -- a majority of either Liberal of NDP supporters are willing to vote for either party to swing this election from a 3-way to a 2-way race. Rather than a repeated Conservative victory via splitting electoral majority of opposition votes between the NDP or Liberals, sufficient voters are apparently now moving support from the NDP to Liberals, which will at least nullify any chances at another Conservative majority, and even possibly deny a Harper minority.

A minority (FRINGE - I'm taking pleasure how validated language riles you up so much ) has no democratic justification to determine governance and legislation over the wills of the majority. Though the Liberals and NDP would cooperate with the majority of MPs to deny another Conservative minority government.

The majority of voter desires does not accurately reflect in the composition of the House of Commons.

Our system of elections is broken. First-past-the-post was intended for a major two party practice. We don't have that.

This all comes back to my consistent desire throughout this thread -- electoral reform in the change to a preferential (ranked) ballot where Member of Parliament may only attain their seat with the majority of votes cast.

See? Reasonably accurate substance. You ought to have the respect and integrity to try harder.

 

[cbrunny]

??? All of the cited analyses I returned exactly support my statements. cbrunny, you've got nada -- just you throwing yet another a swearing tantrum. So stubborn that context and reality are lost to you No, my positions are validated:



I will continue to present what is correct and supported.

You just cannot admit error.......You're back at yelling now that you are so frustrated?

No cbrunny, 30% of a solidified minority of the electorate most certainly IS SMALL (I can do text in CAPS too...) for a portion of the electorate to impose their desires upon the majority of Canadians.

You asked for proof? I gave you proof that that, unlike the majority of Canadians offering support to either the NDP and Liberals, Harper's politically outlying Conservatives are unable to attain the majority of support from the electorate.

CONTEXT cbrunny:

As Harper has marginalised his party to such a partisan extreme, that relative to the opposing other two major parties who either have the majority of Canadian support, the Conservative Party of Canada has cornered itself to only attain a solid minority of electorate support and has thereby placed itself at the political margins -- the FRINGE, as I will continue to state it.

Thankfully -- despite your inept objection -- a majority of either Liberal of NDP supporters are willing to vote for either party to swing this election from a 3-way to a 2-way race. Rather than a repeated Conservative victory via splitting electoral majority of opposition votes between the NDP or Liberals, sufficient voters are apparently now moving support from the NDP to Liberals, which will at least nullify any chances at another Conservative majority, and even possibly deny a Harper minority.

A minority (FRINGE - I'm taking pleasure how validated language riles you up so much ) has no democratic justification to determine governance and legislation over the wills of the majority. Though the Liberals and NDP would cooperate with the majority of MPs to deny another Conservative minority government.

The majority of voter desires does not accurately reflect in the composition of the House of Commons.

Our system of elections is broken. First-past-the-post was intended for a major two party practice. We don't have that.

This all comes back to my consistent desire throughout this thread -- electoral reform in the change to a preferential (ranked) ballot where Member of Parliament may only attain their seat with the majority of votes cast.

See? Reasonably accurate substance.

You're arguing something completely different than I am. I am NOT defending our current electoral system. You ARE suggesting it be changed. That's a completely different debate and I'm not going to engage that debate.

I am saying that 30% is not small. 30% popular support cannot be considered fringe. Period.

(And, FWIW, it's actually 39.6% popular support as of the last general election. 31.5% as of the last published Nanos poll linked above.)