Canadian Federal Election 2015

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
As we have a major 3 party system, a preferrential (ranked) ballot could easily and more often return a majority government. Smaller parties, like any other, could only attain MPs if they win a majority vote in their constituency.

Ranking a ballot requires at least twice as much political information to do "properly" than the current system in a three-major-party system. Enough to rank someone first and enough to rank someone second. I'd love to see more Canadians with oodles of political information but Canadians don't like political information. I don't buy that it is the best system.

Whiskey, I'm gettin real sick of your shit. I think it's great that you've found something that you can plant a flag in and that you feel so strongly about but for fuck sakes your opinions have nothing to do with me. And they are OPINIONS, not FACTS.
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Whiskey, I'm gettin real sick of your shit. I think it's great that you've found something that you can plant a flag in and that you feel so strongly about but for fuck sakes your opinions have nothing to do with me. And they are OPINIONS, not FACTS.
As again evident by your post, cbrunny, the yelling, swearing, and downright disruptive rudeness is all on you.

If you still cannot handle substantative discussion then go ahead and put me back 9n your ignore list.

... I'll later requote my previous elaborated post on various voting scenes and their place in our country.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure one of the big 3 parties will jump at a chance to make it easier for their rivals to gain seats. They are more likely to put some kind of constitutional ban on proportional representation.

2 out of 3 say you're wrong.

Mulcair Promises Proportional Representation If NDP Wins Next Election

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/02/mulcair-ndp-proportional-representation_n_6407056.html

Justin Trudeau lays out platform that would revamp electoral system

"Under a Liberal government, a special, all-party parliamentary committee would be given 18 months to examine proportional representation, ranked ballots and other possible replacements for the first-past-the-post voting system. Trudeau promised to introduce legislation to overhaul Canada’s federal electoral routine based on the committee’s recommendations."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...end-first-past-the-post-electoral-system.html
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
Didn't the conservatives say the exact same thing when they were unpopular?
Those conservatives who did, were at a point when the right leaning parties were fractured between the Reform, then Alliance, along with the traditional Progressive Conservatives. The unitng under the new Conservative Party of Canada alleviated vote splitting among conservatives.

With the single Conservative Party, election reform with the removal of the first-past-the - post system denies the Conservatives the relatively undemocratic practice of splitting the vote amongst the majority of the electorate (left leaning, and certainly most moderates alienated by Harper's relatively extremist fringe).

I guess cbrunny, is quite undemocratic for his preference of the undemocratic status quo (minority of constituents often defining representation and governmentrule over the majority) and cbrunny is quite disrespectful for flat out stating the public is too stupid to be aware of the different parties and rank their preference to represent. Hardly difficult and objectively better than the status quo.

No excuse for cbrunny ignoring the info in this thread on the types of systems nor his stubborness to hash out falsehoods of "no more majority governments being possible."

So Spungo, you were quite incorrect in assuming none of the 3 major parties could favour election reform. Both the Liberals and NDP certainly realize the antiquated first-past-the-post (only democratically suitable in a two party system.. No longer just the Whigs and Tories) disproportionately favours the Conservatives and it has to go.

Thanks to Victorian Gray for citing the specific platforms to prove some for of preferrential ballot or proportional representation is expected to come after October 19 and the defeat of Harper's Conservatives.
 
Last edited:

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
I guess cbrunny, is quite undemocratic for his preference of the undemocratic status quo (minority of constituents often defining representation and governmentrule over the majority) and cbrunny is quite disrespectful for flat out stating the public is too stupid to be aware of the different parties and rank their preference to represent. Hardly difficult and objectively better than the status quo.

I'd love to see more Canadians with oodles of political information but Canadians don't like political information.

Go fuck yourself. My opinion is that the system you've suggested is not the best. My opinion is valid. Or does that opinion make me Hitler too?
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
My opinion is valid.
No, opinions are open to discussion and some opinions can most certainly be invalidated.

Please, learn to discuss as an adult. Listen and learn. Yelling doesn't make one valid:

Go fuck yourself... Or does that opinion make me Hitler too?

If PR ever comes into play, the entire political landscape will change as there will no longer be the possibility for majority government.
That was opinion. Your absolutist opinion was justly invalidated:

No, not at all true, cbrunny.

This has already been fully addressed and explained in this thread. Your fallacy has often been corrected pages ago. Please keep up.

As we have a major 3 party system, a preferrential (ranked) ballot could easily and more often return a majority government. Smaller parties, like any other, could only attain MPs if they win a majority vote in their constituency.

My comment about the Conservatives fracturing apart is of them only representing a rather extremist fringe of society, and thereby repelling moderate voters and small 'c' conservatives. With Harper's Reform takeover, the PCs of old have been shoved aside.

Such a respectful post of mine certainly cannot warrant your vitriol:

Whiskey, I'm gettin real sick of your shit. I think it's great that you've found something that you can plant a flag in and that you feel so strongly about but for fuck sakes your opinions have nothing to do with me.

I go beyond simple and empty opinions. Substance helps a discussion grow... You must have missed a previous post of mine:

~~~

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.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
Everyone is hereby entitled to Whiskey's opinion. All other opinions will be deemed "undemocratic" by fact-master Whiskey. Only He knows - and only He can know - what your opinion should be. All holders of dissenting opinions will be branded as the greatest evil known to man: Hitler, and/or a Conservative. You have been warned.
 

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
153
106
Everyone is hereby entitled to Whiskey's opinion. All other opinions will be deemed "undemocratic" by fact-master Whiskey. Only He knows - and only He can know - what your opinion should be. All holders of dissenting opinions will be branded as the greatest evil known to man: Hitler, and/or a Conservative. You have been warned.

He'll dole out appropriate punishment too.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,700
43,966
136
Everyone is hereby entitled to Whiskey's opinion. All other opinions will be deemed "undemocratic" by fact-master Whiskey. Only He knows - and only He can know - what your opinion should be. All holders of dissenting opinions will be branded as the greatest evil known to man: Hitler, and/or a Conservative. You have been warned.

lol...don't you hate it when you agree with people and they still argue that you are wrong
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
i hope the emergency wards are ready for the oncoming rush of old people heart attacks because that is all i have heard (if the Liberals win i'm gonna have a heart attack) over the weekend if this stays the course.

haha!

My riding will still go blue despite the Liberal surge in Ontario. I read an interesting opinion piece not too long ago. I'll see if I can find it......... gah I can't find it..... here: http://www.robleone.com/the-polls-might-be-wrong/

Quick bit about the author (http://www.robleone.com/about-rob/):
Rob is currently an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario in London, ON. He teaches and researches on a number of topics related to Canadian politics, public policy and public administration at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. He has published research in both national and international publications, and he is a co-editor on a popular university text in public administration. Rob held previous academic appointments at Wilfrid Laurier University where he taught political science, leadership and journalism. In addition to teaching and research, Rob engages in public speaking engagements and consulting work. He also sits on a number of different boards of directors.
and he was an MPP in Ontario from 2011 to 2014.

He isn't arguing that the Cons are going to win - not at all. He is simply positing that the polling might not be as accurate as we want it to be, and a lot of recent electoral examples demonstrate this. One of the confounding factors he specifically states is
There is a well-researched reason for why the polls might be wrong. It’s called the social desirability bias. This is a bias in which survey respondents tend to give answers that are more socially acceptable, while their intentions at the ballot box are completely opposite to what they told pollsters. There are many permutations to this bias, but the major point is when it is socially unpopular to hold certain views, you don’t want to tell people about those views.

The Harper government has never been a tremendously popular government. Polls show that 70% of Canadians want to see change. That’s a popular view. Saying that you’re happy with Harper or his government isn’t. Moreover, how voters feel about the identity politics being played has changed. Initially, voters expressed support for controversial policies on niqabs during citizenship ceremonies and barbaric cultural practices. However, when it became socially toxic to hold those views, people started to tell pollsters their voting intentions change. The question of whether their voting intentions have in fact changed won’t be known until election day, but it’s lost on pretty much everybody at this point.

I'm not quite as convinced. Harper pissed off a lot of moderates I think. I don't see many of them going back, even with the anonymity of the ballot box.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81

Sounds like Obama.
-saying he's too young
-people like him too much
-vague "tough decision" scenario
-saying he's not tough on terrorism

I'm not sure why the conservatives would think wanting to legalize marijuana would be something to attack. Don't most people in the western world support marijuana legalization? A quick google search comes up with the number of 65% of Canadians supporting decriminalized marijuana. Going after marijuana is like picking a fight with the biggest guy in the room.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
Sounds like Obama.
-saying he's too young
-people like him too much
-vague "tough decision" scenario
-saying he's not tough on terrorism

I'm not sure why the conservatives would think wanting to legalize marijuana would be something to attack. Don't most people in the western world support marijuana legalization? A quick google search comes up with the number of 65% of Canadians supporting decriminalized marijuana. Going after marijuana is like picking a fight with the biggest guy in the room.

I personally don't care if marijuana is decriminalized or legalized with regards to the social or legal aspects of it. Go ahead, do what you want. But I'm not convinced that regulating and sale is appropriate in Canada. I think the increase in black-market sales in Colorado and Washington give enough cause for pause but even then if it can be handled in an appropriate way, go for it.

For me, the problem is financial cost. Not of weed, but of the bureaucracy that will need to oversee the regulation and sale, and increased funding to police forces countering black-market sales. I don't see the finances adding up. Canada would create an LCBO-style regulatory body, which means brick-and-mortar stores and unionized employees demanding high wages citing control of a substance similar to alcohol. Could be the same union I suppose but that doesn't get away from having cashiers making $25+/hr plus benefits. Couple that with a 1-year surge in legal purchasing followed by an expected decline in both volume and price as was seen in Colorado: (http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/marijuana-prices-colorado/)
The limited number of dispensaries allowed to sell recreational marijuana during much of the first year of legal sales were able to keep prices relatively high, but prices have come down as more and more entrepreneurs get dispensary licenses and enter the market. At the same time, the report by Nicholas Colas, Convergex’s chief market strategist, notes that “it is also a natural result for any maturing industry as dispensaries try to find the market’s equilibrium price.”

The report also notes that, while the number of customers dispensaries tend to see from day to day has remained fairly constant over the past year, the amount each customer spends is on the decline, with the diminishing novelty of legal recreational pot possibly resulting in an increase in restraint among customers.

So I'm torn. Can't legalize it without legitimizing the sale. Can't legitimize the sale without spending megabucks to do it.

EDIT: Hmm. I guess if there was just one dispensary as would be expected the price could remain high. But would people choose to spend more money on government weed or less money on street weed? The street price will always be cheaper than the government price, I think.
 
Last edited:

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
Voted. It was quick and painless. Showed my driver license and voter card and that was it, 5 min max. The attendants were very courteous and professional. Good overall experience.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |