Canadian Federal Election 2015

[Spungo]

You lying fear mongering twit.

Not all families are in as equal need.

Where does your slippery slope end? You're saying rich people are too rich to deserve child care. Are they too rich to deserve medical care as well? Are you suggesting Canada and its provinces privatize health care just so you can remove funding from everyone but the poor? It sure sounds like you're trying to turn Canada in America, but you're choosing the worst parts of American society. We've tried selectively giving free shit to poor people in the US. IT DOES NOT WORK. Section 8 housing is a failure. Government housing projects like Cabrini Green are failures. Food stamps is a failure (which is why Canada abandoned it in 1977). We put natives on reservations, and now they're the poorest people in the US. Giving them free stuff made everything worse. Incentivising poverty is what creates the "welfare cliff," a strange paradox where getting a raise actually means a net loss of resources for some people, so the system actively discourages people from wanting to get paid more.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...?File_id=b5c0680b-d78d-4e00-b4f7-00b5d2a8816a

A paper presented at the American Enterprise Institute by the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare
found that because of the stacking of welfare benefits, many individuals receiving welfare stand to lose
financially by increasing their income. In one example, the study demonstrated how a single parent with
two children earning $29,000 would have a net income, including welfare benefits, of $57,000.
Therefore, the individual would need annual earnings to jump from $29,000 to $69,000 (pre-tax) to
maintain the same standard of living without welfare benefits

For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or
between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional
dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people
choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”

That's what you're trying to bring to Canada. If you get a raise at work, you lose your child care benefit, so you work more hours and travel more for work, but you don't get to keep any of the money because now you need to pay for daycare. I put that in the same category as private healthcare and private education because they're all roughly the same cost. Average day care in the US is about $900 per month, so about $10,800 per year. Private high school in the US averages $13,000 per year. Health insurance is less than $500/month, so it's actually cheaper than day care. What you're suggesting is worse than privatizing health care.

You know of little. Canadian provinces generally have more power and control over their direct interests than in comparison to US states.

I seriously doubt that. The lowest federal tax bracket in Canada is 15%. They wouldn't take that much money if they weren't disgustingly huge. To put that into context, the maximum federal tax in Switzerland is 12%.


So let's summarize. Privating $500/month health care is evil republican talk, but privatizing $900/month daycare is liberal utopia. Someone please explain the logic behind this.

 

[cbrunny]

I seriously doubt that.

For the sake of argument, here is the division of powers:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html#h-17

the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
1. Repealed. (44)
1A. The Public Debt and Property. (45)
2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
2A. Unemployment insurance. (46)
3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit.
5. Postal Service.
6. The Census and Statistics.
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada.
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.
14. Currency and Coinage.
15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
16. Savings Banks.
17. Weights and Measures.
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19. Interest.
20. Legal Tender.
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
23. Copyrights.
24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.
25. Naturalization and Aliens.
26. Marriage and Divorce.
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries.
29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

and

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
1. Repealed. (48)
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

Provincial powers also include non-renewable resources, education. Old Age Pension is federal, and both feds and provs can make laws relating to immigration.

 

[cbrunny]

http://portal.lispop.ca/elections/fed2015.html

For info.

 

[desy]

Oh for sure the provinces have more power than Ottawa, what the Feds have is scale pulling tax from everywhere, Its one of the advantages of a huge country with diverse economy as each sector rises and falls hopefully elsewhere can take up the slack.
EG the two biggest line items in a provincial budget is health then education, the Federal govrt only funds 10% the provinces have to come up with the rest.


Its what bugs me about when HC is always brought up at these Federal debates, the province has a much bigger determining factor on what HC is, the Feds only support the national HC act to create relative homogeny among the provinces.

 

[KMFJD]

The thought of an NDP government is scaring the hell out of a lot of farmers here in southern Ontario.

 

[KMFJD]

http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/2015/08/14/three-way-race/

Among decided and leaning voters (A11) the Conservatives lead with 31% (-4%) compared to 30% (+1%) for the NDP and 29% (+3%) for the Liberals with the Green Party at 6% (no change).

Cities are Liberal/NDP, mainly farming areas are Conservative

 

[Iron Woode]

The thought of an NDP government is scaring the hell out of a lot of farmers here in southern Ontario.

the idea scares the hell out of me and I am not a farmer.

 

[Whiskey16]

"Canadian provinces generally have more power and control over their direct interests than in comparison to US states."

I seriously doubt that.

It is your option to rebut in error and remain so grossly ill-informed:

THE DIFFERING FEDERALISMS OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

MARTHA A. FIELD* Professor of Law, Harvard University

An irony, however, is that each system has evolved to be more like the plan for the other: In Canada, the intent, clearly reflected in the Constitution of 1867, was for the central government to predominate, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which was the ultimate judicial authority until 1949, when that position was inherited by the Supreme Court of Canada) interpreted provincial powers generously and federal powers with restraint, giving the provinces a much greater share in the balance of power than had been contemplated.' The United States has moved in the opposite direction; here the constitutional plan was one of states' rights, but the result has been strong central government.

Spungo, my stated position is certainly quite well supported....

To corroborate cbrunny's supporting citations, here's a bit more perspective for ya:

The degree of central government power is not the only difference between the systems. If anyone ever entertained the notion that there was a "normal" way for federalism to be structured, a comparison of the distribution of legislative power in the United States and Canada would dispel that notion. On one level, there are noticeable differences in where particular powers are lodged. Marriage and divorce and criminal law, for example, are governed by the central government in Canada but the state governments in the United States, while labor law, nationalized in the United States, is an area jealously guarded by Canada's provincial governments. Moreover, Canadian provinces have much more exclusive power over local commerce than U.S. states do. The central government in Canada does not have effective power to impose economic plans and solutions without the participation and assent of the provinces. The U.S. Congress, by comparison, has authority to regulate essentially all economic activity.

Even more basic than the different distribution of particular powers are the structural differences between the systems. In Canada, the federal and provincial governments are each assigned certain categories of legislation, to the exclusion of the other.2 If the government to which the subject has been
entrusted does not act, therefore, the subject goes unregulated. In the United States, by contrast, the norm is that the nonexercise of federal power to regulate increases the area for state regulation; there are few if any separate spheres in which it is constitutionally permissible only for states to regulate.

This situation of no separate sphere for state lawmaking evolved in part because the states were not given specific powers in the U.S. Constitution, but were left the residuary power. The scheme was that the federal government would have limited and specified powers and all the other powers would belong to the states. In the Canadian Constitution, the scheme was the opposite: the central government would have the residuary as well as specific powers, and the provincial governments' power was to be limited and specified.

In both countries the intent was that the government with the residual power would play the stronger role. The framers of the U.S. Constitution intended federal law to be supreme, but they also assumed that the subject matter of federal law would be limited, so that the residuary clause-"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" 3would have some content. The general lawmaking power thus retained by states, including the basic police power functions of government, were thought to have some significant scope. But because in the U.S. governmental structure the tenth amendment was only a truism, 4 granting to states only whatever power was not possessed by the federal government, expansions of federal power ipsofacto cut down on what was reserved to the states. Eventually, federal powers in the United States were interpreted so broadly that little or nothing remained of the residuum.

..

In Canada, by contrast, the clause giving the central government control over trade and commerce has been interpreted to allow regulation of only international or interprovincial trade. That narrow interpretation of the commerce power is part of a more general cutback on the powers of the central government.5 Other legislative powers, most notably the power of the central government "to make laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada" ("POGG"), were also narrowly read-artificially narrowly, and certainly more narrowly than the original framers had intended.6 Indeed, the experiences of both nations attest to the relative unimportance of both constitutional language and framers' intent in determining results. The scheme resulting in the United States is considered to leave states very weak-to a point where some say we do not even have a viable form of federalism.

Spungo, you expressed doubt in my correct analyses of "Canadian provinces generally having more power and control over their direct interests than in comparison to US states.."

I stand by that. Conveniently enough, that's exactly the conclusion of this Harvard professor's paper:

Enough has been said to show that the Canadian experience raises some questions about many of our suppositions in the United States about what a federal system necessarily entails. Federalism has many forms; moreover, the form a government adopts is not much controlled by its constitution's language or intent. Comparison of the U.S. system with Canada's also shows the United States does have strong states' rights, in some respects, stronger than those of its neighbor to the north, even though the provinces are generally considered more powerful vis-vis their national government than the U.S. states.

 

[Whiskey16]

Back on track to this election and to rail against the incompetently incumbent government and for why -- for the health and integrity of Canada -- it should be tossed out:

• Omnibus 2015 Budget Bill contains legislation to retro-actively change law to prevent Mounties from being charged for illegally destroying Long Gun Registry data;
• Sold the Canada Wheat Board to Saudi and U.S. interests, despite competing bid from Canadian Farmers group
• Criticized by Auditor General for not calculating the long term costs or benefits of their tax initiatives, and for the political partisanship of their nature;
• Paid Public Servants overtime to appear in partisan Economic Action Plan videos;
• Loaned Volkswagen $526 million to expand operations in Mexico, but only provided $200 million in support for all of Canada’s manufacturing sector in his 2015 Budget;
• Auditor General’s Report states that Stephen Harper’s changes to parole system have increased costs and over-crowding in prison, with no noticeable improvement in prisoner rehabilitation;
• Harper’s former Parliamentary Secretary, Dean Del Mastro, found guilty of election fraud;
• Government found guilty of election fraud 5 times in 8 years;
• The only party in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament (endorsed by a Conservative Speaker of the House);
• Spent $700,000 fighting Canada’s veterans in court Put soldier’s lives at risk for partisan pre-election photo-op;
• Spent $623 million on Partisan advertising, plus another $7.5 just for radio ads to promote a budget was delayed in being released and now found to be misleading in claims of surplus with the likely current recession returning yet another consistent deficit for the entire Conservative terms leading government;
• Spent $7 million in partisan anti-drug ads in just 3 months
• Spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars developing partisan legislation that stood no chance of withstanding a Constitutional challenge……and when all were overturned by the Supreme Court, began undermining the credibility of the Court, and its Chief Justice;
• Deception around Nigel Wright repaying the $90,000 Conservative Senator Mike Duffy defrauded from taxpayers, closing off investigation and refusing to give details….with RCMP finding all trails lead back to Stephen Harper’s office;
• undemocratic ‘Fair Elections Act’ removing ability of Elections Canada to do its job and where any investigations are no longer to report to parliament, rather to the government and Prime Minister’s Office;
• Auditor General reported $3.1 billion in anti- terror funding missing;
• Using taxpayer dollars to fund partisan personal attack ads;
• Over spent those cabinet-approved ad budgets by $128-million — more than 37 per cent…..all the while cutting funding to important government programs;
• Conservative campaign staff proven to be behind Guelph Robocalls to defraud voters to a non-existent polling station; Judge ruled that obstruction had denied an ability to find wider sources of responsibility within Conservative Party offices,
• Increased the size of the federal public service by 32,000 employees, increased government spending by 30% to a record $276 billion,
ignored recommendations contained in 2012 Auditor General’s Report regarding security deficiencies at the Parliament Buildings…….contributing to the killing of a soldier there on October 22, 2014;
• Veterans Affairs Minister Fantino criticized for spending $4 million on advertising programs for veterans rather than investing the money in services;
• reduced funding for Canada’s military to an all-time low of 1.4% of GDP;
• In 2008 cancelled the previous Liberal government plan to build three new naval replenishment vessels. In 2015 both existing supply ships removed from service with plans for only 2 new replacement ships not expected to be available for another 5 years. Delays and inflation costs cut the ability to build new supply ships from 3 down to 2,
• Slashed funding to the federal immunization program by 23% since 2006
• Despite the Conservative government’s frequent warnings about lingering terrorist threats, it quietly abolished a federal panel of national security advisers;
• Jason Kenny currently campaigning against government roles in potential terrorist de-radicalisation programs and, despite researched evidence, stating that such programs are even "counter-productive;"
• Deny funding and recognition of safe-injection sites of narcotics such as the INSIGHT program, despite recorded history and research to the benefits to decreasing crime, social and medical health and safety of a local community and of decreasing long term government costs;
• Harper appointed con-artist and later fraud convict Arthur Porter to chair oversight of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Agency;
• Shut down Committee investigating F-35 purchase scandal;
• Lied to Parliament and the Canadian public about the true cost of the F-35's,
• Auditor General proves fraud and incompetence in Government's F-35 purchase,
• Lost Canada’s seat on the Security Council;
• The annual cost of paying Conservative political staffers working in a network of satellite minister’s offices ballooned by 70 per cent (from $1.6 million to $2.7 million) during the same years the government was eliminating some departments and programs, and ordering others to tighten their belts;
• Stephen Harper employs 3,325 ‘media consultants,’ at a cost of $263 million…..almost equal to the cost of operating the House of Commons;
• $1.3 billion in unspent funding for Veterans returned to Treasury to help balance budget after Veterans Services cutbacks;
• ratified a controversial 31 year treaty that will allow China to sue Canada in secret tribunals for Canadian laws that interfere with Chinese investments;
• muzzled outgoing leader of Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC), Lt.-Gen. Stu Beare …. preventing him from talking to journalists about the challenges that CJOC and Canada face during this period of global tumult;
• imposition of new federal grain and transportation rules, that because of lack of coordination, transparency, accountability, and infrastructure……caused global clients to walk away and buy elsewhere……at a cost of $5 billion to Canadian farmers;
• poor monitoring of safety and environmental controls by Department of Transport, detailed in damning Transportation Safety Board report as a contributing factor in the Lac-Mégantic train derailment that killed 47 people;
• A report by Canada’s veterans watchdog says nearly half of the country’s most severely disabled ex-soldiers are not receiving a government allowance intended to compensate them for their physical and mental wounds;
• In violation of ministerial ethics rules, sent out email to Public Servants asking them to promote Conservative tax proposal on Twitter;
• In violation of ministerial ethic rules, Jason Kenney used Public Servants as fake stand-ins for a recorded citizenship ceremony;
• Harper government paid $35 million to quietly settle lawsuit regarding contract dispute where Conservatives rigged the bidding process;
• Industry Minister Christian Paradis stays in Cabinet after being found in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act;
• Diane Finley found in violation of House of Commons ethics rules;
• Guilty for the 2008 "in-and-out" election scandal after Elections Canada looked into the expenses and said the Conservatives violated campaign financing rules by moving $1.3 million in and out of 67 ridings to pay for national ads.

Just a bit of an inexcusable itemised list for a rational critique against Harper's inept governing performance.... After a decade long record of harm to this country, they warrant to be turfed. Heave Steve... Anyone But Harper... Are mantras now quite widely shared by nearly 70% of the populace.

NDP or Liberal. Either to lead government. Currently it looks like a minority government to come to power. If by a rotten roll the Conservatives return with a minority, then it is quite likely a coalition between the NPD-Liberal-Green will form government. Recent polls show 70-80% of either Liberal of NDP supporters desiring such majority governance to keep Harper out.

Do this, with among the first orders of legislation to be election reform and the elimination of the first-past-the-post system where one vote for a single candidate can return representation by an MP that the majority of the constituency would not support and where the majority within a constituency would gladly move support from their first to a potential second ballot choice.

Such a democratic system for a our practicing than binary party system, would forever fairly deny a return into power by extremist (likes of the Reformer/Alliance) fringe that coopted the Progressive Conservative Party into the demagogue of the new Conservative Party of Canada. Forever more, only moderates who represent the majority ideals of Canadians could gain the ability to govern.

 

[cbrunny]

I feel very strongly that

A) an ndp -liberal coalition would be necessary for the liberals to regain some clout in the wake of 10 years of failure
B) the ndp have no reason to entertain the thought of a coalition and a true coalition will not happen. Libs may back an ndp minority but not a true two-parties-share-cabinet coalition
C) a referendum will be needed to change the electoral system
D) any referendum on electoral change will fail.

 

[Whiskey16]

C) a referendum will be needed to change the electoral system

There is no legal need at all, as it is the freedom of choice for a sitting government to arbitrarily choose referendum as a democratic tool.

If chosen to, a government is free to legislate parliamentary change and the Senate to pass it for potential federal electoral reform.

Federally, other than elections for a representative Member of Parliament, there are no legal requirements imposing a 'need' for other avenues towards direct public appeal, and I think the only referendum has been in 1898 considering the prohibition of alcohol.

Examine the 1992 Referendum Act:

3. (1) Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.

Unlike the federal government, some of the provinces have passed more direct legislation concerning provincial public plebiscites.

D) any referendum on electoral change will fail.

After you recognising that a public referendum is not 'needed' can you provide reasoning as to why it would fail and at what threshold ought it be required to fail?

A decade ago here in BC, election reform did fail in 57% votes for it not surpassing the arbitrary 60% threshold.

That was a decade ago with a much decreased loss in voter interest and local concerning need towards electoral reform. 70% of contemporary Canadians are rather deeply disenfranchised and concerned at failing governance under the current Conservatives that only achieved parliamentary majority power via individual riding vote-splitting between the opposing parties. Winning individual riding elections with a minority of votes cast. To contrast, unlike federally, British Columbia is jurisdiction with practically only a two party contest in the vast majority of ridings and therefore where the first-past-post system isn't such a concern as usually return a Member of the Legislative Assembly attaining the majority of overall votes per riding.

That squeaker referendum loss was for a relatively confusing multi-member electoral districts of a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system rather than an easy to comprehend retention of one MP per riding, but moving to a ranking ballot of choosing the order of candidates one could support and the freedom of not selecting those one doesn't. An easy to comprehend system where the winning MP could only represent with the majority of votes.

 

[cbrunny]

There is no legal need at all, as a referendum may only be arbitrarily chosen as a tool by a sitting government.

Federally, other than elections for a representative Member of Parliament, there are no legal requirements imposing a 'need' for other avenues towards direct public appeal, and I think the only referendum has been in 1898 considering the prohibition of alcohol.

Examine the 1992 Referendum Act:



Unlike the federal government, some of the provinces have passed more direct legislation concerning provincial public plebiscites.

After you recognising that a public referendum is not 'needed' can you provide reasoning as to why it would fail and at what threshold ought it be required to fail?

A decade ago here in BC, election reform did fail in 57% votes for it not surpassing the arbitrary 60% threshold.

That was a decade ago with a much decreased loss in voter interest nor local concerning need towards electoral reform. To contrast, unlike federally, British Columbia is jurisdiction with practically only a two party contest in the vast majority of ridings and therefore where the first-past-post system isn't such a concern as it rarely returned a winning MP attaining only a minority of overall votes cast.

That squeaker referendum loss was for a relatively confusing Single Transferable Vote (STV) system rather than an easy to comprehend ranking ballot of choosing the order of candidates one could support and the freedom of not selecting those one doesn't. An easy to comprehend system where the winning MP could only represent with the majority of votes.

Legal need or not, I strongly believe there should be a referendum on it. It is of such importance to our democracy that it requires it. FPTP has been fundamental to Canadian democracy and parliaments around the world such that without a clear directive from the people on this one issue in particular, it should never be adjusted without clear mandate from the people via referendum. I wholly and completely reject the notion that a referendum is not needed, and will oppose vocally any party that suggests changing the electoral system does not need a referendum. The mere suggestion that it doesn't require referendum makes me question your political knowledge and views. Why would this ever not require a referendum?

It's failed in Ontario too. Obliterated, really. 63% voted no. Probably have been referendums in other provinces as well. As for a threshold, I'd be comfortable with 50%+1 but I'd really prefer 60%.

It will fail for multiple reasons:
- any other system is more confusing than "pick the person you want to elect." Rankings, two votes, etc all require that an individual needs to have more political knowledge to make an informed vote. Canadians don't like voting. Why would we expect them to like voting multiple times in the same election?
- Most of the proposed alternatives have substantial issues with the concept of representation. This is a nuanced argument that most people won't care about but for me it matters a lot. As an example of what I mean, right now I elect a representative. If we were to switch to a prop rep system, I would not elect a representative. I would elect a party, none of whom would have MPs that DIRECTLY represented my constituency. That's a problem for me, especially in this era of whipped votes and party discipline. I don't want to vote for a leader, I want to vote for a local representative that represents my interests, or at the very least someone I can communicate with directly about my interests. EDIT: The only way to weaken party discipline and whipped voting under the current system without major policy changes is for Canadians to be vocal and understand they are electing a representative locally, and not a leader. If this is understood, more people will talk to their MPs and party discipline will weaken. It will take a slow, vocal effort but change here would be healthy and good.
- Too many options; the referendum will fall victim to "yes we need change but this is not the right change" and will be voted down.
- Electoral reform only serves the interests of the parties that don't win, and all proposed methods make it effectively harder to win an election. It is not in the interest of any leadership (except niche parties) to have reform if their goal is to win an election (e.g. be the government).
- no one likes political parites, so why would we want to change to a system that gives a voice to niche parties? Why would we want to become more extremist on some issues? Centrist parties serve best in parliamentary systems - we don't have to spend time talking about how much some guy hates Jews or wants multiple wives or wants to snort cocaine in public or some other shit.

It would have no chance of passing.

 

[Whiskey16]

First, I do agree with you upon the ills and confusion with proportional representation and BC's attempt of multiple MPs per riding for electoral reform, yet I did not advocate PR and you neglected to recognise its contrasts to a ranking ballot system.

A ranking ballot to elect a single MP most certainly cannot enable extremists and niche parties a chance at power by sliding up the middle. A ranking ballot ensures centrist and more moderate governance by only permitting an MP who can win an election with a majority of constituent support. It's the exact opposite of your fearful concerns and as I stated with the contemporary examples of current Conservatives representing with a majority parliament despite a strong majority in opposition within the majority of ridings.

The core Conservative support most certainly are and will be opposed to a change away from the first-past-the-post system. They demand the retention of representative power despite being a minority of the overall electorate. We are no longer in a classic two party Westminster system. First-past-the-post enables a fringe party who could never garner the majority of constituent support to slide up the middle to victory if campaigning against multiple parties who share a more common ground between and better reflect the majority of constituents' but split that majority vote amongst themselves.

In a greater than two party system, particular one as ours where it's often a 3 way race, the first-past-the-post balloting is, in practice, undemocratic and returns poor, disenfranchising, and unrepresentational governance

A ranked ballot is not adding the complication for "voting multiple times in a single election."

A ranked ballot guarantees representation from the majority of constituent support and simplifies the election without the run-off elections found in some foreign states.

As now, a single ballot with the same list of candidates would be used to choose a single elected MP. The only change being a freedom rank personable viable candidates as first onto a second, third, and so-on choices next to their names. It provides encouraged freedom to elect adequate representation for the majority of voters for dropping the fear of wasting a vote for a party candidate that may lose and facing returning a local fringe candidate (most often a Conservative Party of Canada) to become MP despite the majority of constituents strongly disagreeing with that platform.

This enables power to the voter to longer have a buyers remorse in voting for a losing candidate knowing that the winning MP that they greatly oppose could not have won if only they had predicted the future and moved their singular support to their second choice.

 

[cbrunny]

Multiple methods, multiple outcomes, multiple pros, multiple cons. Your post is both the exact reason we need a referendum and the exact reason why it will certainly fail.

 

[Whiskey16]

From my alma-mater, here's a good synopsis of varying electoral systems. Starting with our current first-past-the-post:

Reform of the Electoral System

The single member plurality system used in all Canadian federal and provincial elections has many strengths but also reveals serious weaknesses in producing legislatures that reflect the choice of parties made by the voters. Also, recent Canadian elections have witnessed a significant fall in voter turnout, which some say indicates that structural changes are needed in order to encourage greater participation.
..

Strengths of Single Member Plurality (SMP) There are several direct advantages of using the single member plurality system. First, it is far more likely to produce majority governments in a competitive multi-party system. In the 12 federal elections held in the last 40 years, 8 have resulted in majority governments, even though the winning party won a majority of votes only once, in 1984. Majority governments are said to provide stable government and allow direct accountability to the electorate. In contrast, partners in a minority or coalition government can either point fingers at each other or each claim credit at the next election.

SMP also facilitates clear community representation. With the 2004 elections, Canada is divided into 308 constituencies each with their own representative to speak on behalf of local interests.


Disadvantages of SMP Systems
The are a number of disadvantages to the SMP system. The most important is that a party's share of the votes only rarely bears any semblance to the share of seats they win. A candidate only needs one more vote than her or his opponents. The winner's votes beyond that number are "wasted" while the votes for all the other candidates do not help in electing other members of their parties.

Examples of vote/seat distortion abound in Canadian elections. The clearest example is found in the 1987 New Brunswick provincial election, in which the Liberal Party won all the seats in the legislature on the strength of about 60% of the vote. The other 40% of the electorate were left with no direct representation of their policy interests in the legislature.
In the 1997 federal elections, two other serious problems emerged. In Ontario, the Liberals won 99 out of 101 the province's seats. However, a bare majority of voters had voted for other candidates. In PEI, the Liberals won all four seats on the basis of about 45% of the vote.

In the 2006 New Brunswick, 1998 Quebec, 1996 BC, and 1986 Saskatchewan provincial elections, parties won a majority of seats even though they had placed second in the overall province-wide total of the votes.

BC's first referendum in 2005 considered an STV system, with the yes side losing by 3% with 57% out the required 60%. It can be quite clear as to how this relatively complicated and convoluted system was not popular enough:

The single transferable vote (STV) system has not been widely adopted around the world, but its profile has been raised in Canada since the BC Citizens' Assembly recommended in 2004 that the province should adopt STV instead of SMP. The STV system raises the probability that the main parties share of seats in the legislature will be somewhat proportional to their share of votes. In this system, a country or province is divided into smaller regions, and several members will be elected from each region. From the voters' perspective the system is similar to the alternative vote system, since voters rank the parties or candidates in order of their preference (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Initially all the candidates first preferences are counted up in order to see if any have achieved the "quota" of votes needed to get elected. This quota is determined by a mathematical equation that is based on the number of valid votes cast and the number of seats to elected in the region.

Number of valid votes + 1 = Quota
(Number to be elected) + 1
​

For example, if 100,000 valid votes were cast and there are 3 seats to be filled, then the quota is calculated in the following way to be 25,001 votes:

100,000 + 1 = 25,001
3 + 1
​

cbrunny, here's the outlining of the proportional representational system that you railed against and where an extremist fringe party garnering enough proportional votes could certainly attain some Member of Parliament seats:

The most popular systems are proportional representation systems. There are several varieties, but all attempt to translate a parties share of votes into a roughly proportional share of the legislature's seats. The most common is a party list system, where political parties prepare a ranked list of candidates with up to as many candidates as there are seats in the legislature. On election day, the voters vote for the party of their choice and the total votes for each party are added up. The parties are then declared to have won a number of seats in the legislature that is roughly proportionate to their share of the votes; most countries have some threshold number of votes (i.e. 3 or 5%) that a party must win in order to qualify for seats. There are two variations on this system: the closed list works strictly with the list of candidates as ranked by the parties, and the seats are filled from candidates drawn from the top of the list and working down; the open list system allows the voters to vote for a candidate and the candidate's final position on the party's list of candidates is determined by the overall number of votes he or she has received. The success with which a PR system provides parties with a share of the seats that is proportional to their vote share is dependent on several factors including the number of parties that fall short of the threshold and whether the votes and seats are counted up either nationally, provincially, or regionally. In counties such as Israel or the Netherlands, where the votes are added up and distributed nationally, the large pool of seats allows a closer relationship between seats and votes. Many countries, however, divide the pool of seats into smaller regions with a smaller set of seats (for example from 5 to 20). The smaller the number of seats to be shared, the more likely distortions are likely to occur in competitive, multi-party elections. In addition, there are several mathematical formulae that can be used to allocate seats among the parties and each imparts a certain distortion into the process.

It's failed in Ontario too. Obliterated, really. 63% voted no. Probably have been referendums in other provinces as well. As for a threshold, I'd be comfortable with 50%+1 but I'd really prefer 60%.

..

- no one likes political parites, so why would we want to change to a system that gives a voice to niche parties? Why would we want to become more extremist on some issues? Centrist parties serve best in parliamentary systems - we don't have to spend time talking about how much some guy hates Jews or wants multiple wives or wants to snort cocaine in public or some other shit.

It would have no chance of passing.

cbrunny, 'it,' being a singular preferential rather than proportional and multi-MP per riding system has never been offered to Canadians. You are in error to deny what is potentially to be.

Yes, centrist parties best serve in a representative system, and is why the first-past-the-post systems has failed and warrants a replacement, and why a preferential ballot best serves the democratic interests in a greater than two party system. The majority of Canadians prefer to see either the NDP or Liberals leading government than Harper's Conservatives. The Conservative Party of Canada is most certainly not centrist, as in their current incarnation cannot achieve the majority of constituents votes in a majority of ridings. That is in stark contrast to the NDP and Liberals who's platforms generally represent much of the interests and potential support from the majority of Canadians.

Here's what the federal Liberals and myself are in favour for, a retention of the same riding candidates list we are all familiar with, with a simple preferential ballot to elect a single candidate who attains the majority of votes to represent that single riding. It is simple to comprehend, apply, and I feel a democratically superior system has not yet been offered to any jurisdiction in Canada:

Some countries, such as Australia and France, use majority systems that aim to ensure that the winning candidate has received some sort of support from a majority of voters. These are usually single member ridings and can either be by preferential ballot or multiple rounds of voting. In the Alternative Vote system, a voter ranks the candidates on the ballot paper according to their preference: their first choice gets "1", the second choice "2", and so on. When all the first choice votes are added up, a candidate is declared a winner only if they have a majority of the first choices. In the event that no one has a majority of first choice votes, then the candidate with the least number is dropped off the list, and their ballot papers are examined to redistribution according to the second choice marked on the ballot. These votes are then added to the remaining candidates and added up to see if anyone has a majority. The process of eliminating a candidate and redistributing their votes is continued until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. The French use a double ballot system, where one round of voting is held in single member ridings; if a candidate receives a majority then they are elected. If not, then a second round of voting is held a few weeks later, with lower ranked candidates eliminated.

 

[Whiskey16]

B) the ndp have no reason to entertain the thought of a coalition and a true coalition will not happen.

Incorrect, nearly a certainty if the return is a Conservative minority government.

It is not only the overwhelming polled motivation for both NDP and Liberal supporters (around 70% of either of their constituents) to desire a coalition to prevent a Conservative government, but a need in both parties to deny Harper to return as PM.

Harper had two previous terms with a Conservative minority governance before gaining a majority. Now, with the Conservative Party of Canada as likely vulnerable as they can ever be (considering their solidified base at 25-27% of eligible voters), it would become a political disaster for both the NDP and Liberals to again see their majority share of the vote split to return yet another unchallenged minority parliament governance to the Conservatives. Both parties could likely see internal calls for blood against their leadership.

No, cbrunny, a minority Conservative parliament will quickly result in an NDP-Liberal and likely Green party formal coalition to govern.

Hell, that's if the Conservatives slip back to a minority status. This is a long election, starting during a court case concerning Conservative corruption, ill ethics and lies, in a recession, a growing deficit, and incumbent government that rationally becomes more vulnerable the longer things get drawn out. Polls change, but the latest as of today have them, for the first time in over a decade, into third place.

 

[cbrunny]

I disagree entirely. It would overwhelmingly weaken both the ndp and liberal brands at a time when the ndp have never been more popular. Doesn't make any sense even if they lose in a minority situation. A minority won't last long. Ndp needs to build that strength, not weaken it.

 

[Whiskey16]

I disagree entirely. It would overwhelmingly weaken both the ndp and liberal brands at a time when the ndp have never been more popular.

The Conservatives losing power is what is required for voter reform.

Such reform can nearly forever enable either the Liberals or NDP to form government from the pool of a majority of voters who are not among the core 25-27% hard-line Conservatives.

A return of the Conservatives to power -- despite being as unpopular as they are -- in the existing first-past-the-post system will solidify the relative political and vote splitting weaknesses of the current incarnations of the Liberals and NDP and near certainly bring about strong considerations to a leadership review in both parties.

I fail to see how you find certainty in yet another Tory government effectively strengthens Mulcair's NDP.

 

[cbrunny]

The Conservatives losing power is what is required for voter reform.

Such reform can nearly forever enable either the Liberals or NDP to form government from the pool of a majority of voters who are not among the core 25-27% hard-line Conservatives.

A return of the Conservatives to power -- despite being as unpopular as they are -- in the existing first-past-the-post system will solidify the relative political and vote splitting weaknesses of the current incarnations of the Liberals and NDP and near certainly bring about strong considerations to a leadership review in both parties.

I fail to see how you find certainty in yet another Tory government effectively strengthens Mulcair's NDP.

You've put words in my mouth. I didn't say a Tory minority helps the NDP. I said an NDP-Liberal coalition weakens considerably the NDP brand.

 

[Whiskey16]

I said an NDP-Liberal coalition weakens considerably the NDP brand.

What's the advantage to either of those parties in denying a coalition and experience the governance of yet another Harper minority government?

Long term goals. As I said, the risk of a non-confidence vote to cause another Harper minority government to fall does not return the certainty of either the Liberals nor the NDP attaining a greater number of seats than the Conservatives in yet another election.

The precedent of history is known and feared. After two consecutive minority governments, Harper wasn't tossed out but won a majority of parliamentary seats after that last parliamentary vote of non-confidence.

Election reform is the only CERTAIN path for victory against the Conservatives and of enabling the majority of NDP and even Liberal voters to democratically deny the current incarnation of Tories from power. If another Conservative minority then they are another CPC government forming via a coalition with the second most populace party in the House of Commons joining with at least one other party providing a sufficient number of seats to govern.

For either the NDP or Liberals, election reform is the key to their perpetual viability. A much greater proportion of voters would vote for either the NDP or Liberals while refusing to elect any current Conservative MP. Without a first-past-the-post system, the Harper Conservatives style of government and fringe ideology condemn themselves with their limited 25-27% electoral base to the margins of Canadian society.

Sorry cbrunny, but you're not providing any rational played out scenario for why the NDP would gamble against a coalition with the Liberals and/or Greens and why the NDP would lie down to accept another minority Harper government.

 

[cbrunny]

Lol ok buddy. We disagree and that's OK. We will see what happens in October. Personally I'd respect the NDP less if a coalition does happen this time around. Seems to me like it's a waste of time trying to argue with someone that wants to put words in my mouth while they simultaneously call a conservative ideology fringe in the same breath as they claim the Centre and left require reform to remain viable.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lol ok buddy. We disagree and that's OK. We will see what happens in October. Personally I'd respect the NDP less if a coalition does happen this time around. Seems to me like it's a waste of time trying to argue with someone that wants to put words in my mouth while they simultaneously call a conservative ideology fringe in the same breath as they claim the Centre and left require reform to remain viable.

The question remains, why would you respect them less? How much do you respect them now?

 

[cbrunny]

I believe that mulcair is an excellent leader, very intelligent. I respect him and the ndp a hell of a lot more than the liberals. As I said earlier, I want to learn more about what this ndp party is proposing. But generally I respect a party that sticks to its guns and doesn't cave on its principles. I also think my dog would do a better job of running the country than Trudeau and partnering with him to run the country would demolish mulcair.

 

[Blue_Max]

Gawd - anyone but Trudeau. That pandering vote-grabber would have an unemployment office and mosque on every corner if he got in. The country would be broke before his term was over.

(Next time use something better than a dish towel...)

Your final comment, which I bolded, crosses the line.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Whiskey16]

Gawd - anyone but Trudeau. That pandering vote-grabber would have an unemployment office and mosque on every corner if he got in.

..

(Next time use something better than a dish towel...)

We get it troll. Your record on this forum is clear -- you are violent and promote crimes and terrorism to further your hatred of Muslims:

Grow up, or we'll have no choice but to protect ourselves from a terrible, violent culture - and remove it from our land.

...this unrest will only worsen in every single country until we either convert, die, or eliminate them once and for all. Sounds awful, right? Every liberal in the room is now in a rage but it doesn't change the facts.

...

I wonder if nuking Mecca and eliminating the ability to enter paradise would end the religion, or would they ignore the q-book and just build a new borg cube to march around?

Take your violence and bigoted hatred elsewhere.