You've misrepresented our practiced system.So much FUD spread about the top 2 candidates during the campaign. I'm confused a bit about this election process. I've got a page still open that shows:
Libs 184 seats 39.6% popular vote
Cons 102 seats 32.1% popular vote
That's a huge disparity, 7.5% popular vote difference but ~80% seat difference? This seems even more un-representative than the US electoral college.
The US typically only has a practiced choice between to parties.
Canada doesn't just have two parties in major play as you've portrayed, rather 3 major parties, and in some ridings there are 4 that can compete.
As a plurality rather binary is practiced, this is why a first-past-the-post ballot system is antiquated and insufficient to return adequate democratic representation.
Read previous posts of mine concerning electoral reform and a preferential (ranked) ballot to only return Members of Parliament who receive >50% of the vote, or a mixed system of proportional representation.
Regardless, Harper's Conservatives garnered so much revulsion and motivation to remove while the Liberals under Trudeau garnered quite a wave of support, that even with any type of electoral reform, the Liberals still would have achieved governance.
What I've been saying from the start of this thread and condemning that fringe party as radicalised by Harper. Justly marginalised, Harper is gone.NATIONAL POST: John Ivison
By invoking the menace of imaginary hobgoblins like the niqab, Harper invited the comparison. He, like Nixon, will no doubt find solace in telling reporters they won’t have him to kick around any more. But Nixon said that in his “last press conference” in 1962 and returned to politics to become president six years later.
I doubt we’ll see Harper or his like again. The Liberal Party is intent on changing the way we vote – a reform that would make it less likely we will see any Tories in power for quite some time, far less an incremental radical like Harper.
Last edited: