Canadian Federal Election 2015

[Whiskey16]

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.

You've misrepresented our practiced system.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Victorian Gray]

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Spungo]

Hope Steve enjoys retirement.

He will. Government pension, bitches! :awe:

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.

I'm really impressed with Canada's system. Green party has like 1 seat or so? And their leader was still invited to all of the debates? US elections are textbook rigged. The debates are privately run. If you're not accepting bribes or are not worth bribing, you're not invited to the US presidential debates. Even the really popular candidates are completely ignored by the media because they're not corrupt enough.
Daily Show: Ron Paul doesn't exist.

The day minor candidates are not invited to the debates is the day people should have a violent revolution. Don't let Canada turn into the US.

 

[mmntech]

I do regret posting that despite it being the best info I had at the time. Shouldn't have jumped the gun. I'm tired, cranky, and need a Snickers. The last year has worn hard on me so I'm more pissed off at everything in general than usual. I'll end my ranting and go back to being civil if y'all else can. That's the closest thing you'll get to an apology from me so take it or leave it.

Turnout for Federal elections does tend to be better than lower levels of government but even 2/3 (which seems to be the best we can muster lately) is too low. It's difficult to have a functioning democracy when 1/3 of people are disenfranchised, even if it is voluntarily so. The problem seems to be dissatisfaction with the candidates running and a lack of confidence in the system in general. Even a lot of people who did vote said the same thing.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is it alienates a large chunk of voters. 60% of voters did not vote for Trudeau this election, just as 60% of voters did not vote for Harper last election. There's a big disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats held. The problem tends to be alleviated with minority governments. Which I think is the best possible outcome in any election. It's the only real way to put meaningful checks and balances on the ruling party in our system. Simply put, no party should have a monopoly on power without getting at least 50% of the popular vote.

I've seen proportional representation argued as being a potential solution for the problem. It much better reflects popular vote and gives smaller parties a voice in the house. However it's prone to deadlocks. You also don't get to directly choose the people who actually fill the seats. That decision is up to the party. Which leaves the door open to patronage and lack of engagement at the local level. That's a big enough problem already that doesn't need to be made worse. A lot of people dismiss it but I still think local engagement is important, if not critical. When the MP isn't directly interacting with their constituents, it leaves the door open for yet another disconnect. So I'm not sure what the best solution is.

As for quality of leadership, I think this can be resolved through better civic engagement. Greater civilian oversight would help keep politicians more honest. The current system doesn't empower people to get involved though. Especially young people. Lack of civics education was the problem when I was in high school. The mandatory volunteer work for high schoolers here in Ontario, while a tad ironic, was a smart idea. It gets kids engaged in some way. I'm also a fan of US style term limits to provide continuing opportunities for new leadership. Eight years seems to be a natural cutoff point before leaders become stale anyway.

Finally, we may need to reevaluate partisan politics. Which is more a philosophical question than a practical one. All parties have good ideas but a lot of them get boxed into these inflexible categories. This encourages divisiveness and the promotion of some pretty rotten ideas.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He will. Government pension, bitches! :awe:


I'm really impressed with Canada's system. Green party has like 1 seat or so? And their leader was still invited to all of the debates? US elections are textbook rigged. The debates are privately run. If you're not accepting bribes or are not worth bribing, you're not invited to the US presidential debates. Even the really popular candidates are completely ignored by the media because they're not corrupt enough.
Daily Show: Ron Paul doesn't exist.

The day minor candidates are not invited to the debates is the day people should have a violent revolution. Don't let Canada turn into the US.

That's, at least in part, why Steve is gone.

 

[senseamp]

Congratulations, Canada, for ridding yourself of the scourge of conservatism. You are an inspiration to us Americans, though we have a long way to go.

 

[Whiskey16]

Turnout for Federal elections does tend to be better than lower levels of government but even 2/3 (which seems to be the best we can muster lately) is too low. It's difficult to have a functioning democracy when 1/3 of people are disenfranchised, even if it is voluntarily so. The problem seems to be dissatisfaction with the candidates running and a lack of confidence in the system in general. Even a lot of people who did vote said the same thing.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is it alienates a large chunk of voters. 60% of voters did not vote for Trudeau this election, just as 60% of voters did not vote for Harper last election. There's a big disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats held. The problem tends to be alleviated with minority governments. Which I think is the best possible outcome in any election. It's the only real way to put meaningful checks and balances on the ruling party in our system. Simply put, no party should have a monopoly on power without getting at least 50% of the popular vote.

I've seen proportional representation argued as being a potential solution for the problem. It much better reflects popular vote and gives smaller parties a voice in the house. However it's prone to deadlocks. You also don't get to directly choose the people who actually fill the seats. That decision is up to the party. Which leaves the door open to patronage and lack of engagement at the local level. That's a big enough problem already that doesn't need to be made worse. A lot of people dismiss it but I still think local engagement is important, if not critical. When the MP isn't directly interacting with their constituents, it leaves the door open for yet another disconnect. So I'm not sure what the best solution is.

As for quality of leadership, I think this can be resolved through better civic engagement. Greater civilian oversight would help keep politicians more honest. The current system doesn't empower people to get involved though. Especially young people. Lack of civics education was the problem when I was in high school. The mandatory volunteer work for high schoolers here in Ontario, while a tad ironic, was a smart idea. It gets kids engaged in some way. I'm also a fan of US style term limits to provide continuing opportunities for new leadership. Eight years seems to be a natural cutoff point before leaders become stale anyway.

Finally, we may need to reevaluate partisan politics. Which is more a philosophical question than a practical one. All parties have good ideas but a lot of them get boxed into these inflexible categories. This encourages divisiveness and the promotion of some pretty rotten ideas.

Thank you, a good post mmmntech.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I do regret posting that despite it being the best info I had at the time. Shouldn't have jumped the gun. I'm tired, cranky, and need a Snickers. The last year has worn hard on me so I'm more pissed off at everything in general than usual. I'll end my ranting and go back to being civil if y'all else can. That's the closest thing you'll get to an apology from me so take it or leave it.

Turnout for Federal elections does tend to be better than lower levels of government but even 2/3 (which seems to be the best we can muster lately) is too low. It's difficult to have a functioning democracy when 1/3 of people are disenfranchised, even if it is voluntarily so. The problem seems to be dissatisfaction with the candidates running and a lack of confidence in the system in general. Even a lot of people who did vote said the same thing.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is it alienates a large chunk of voters. 60% of voters did not vote for Trudeau this election, just as 60% of voters did not vote for Harper last election. There's a big disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats held. The problem tends to be alleviated with minority governments. Which I think is the best possible outcome in any election. It's the only real way to put meaningful checks and balances on the ruling party in our system. Simply put, no party should have a monopoly on power without getting at least 50% of the popular vote.

I've seen proportional representation argued as being a potential solution for the problem. It much better reflects popular vote and gives smaller parties a voice in the house. However it's prone to deadlocks. You also don't get to directly choose the people who actually fill the seats. That decision is up to the party. Which leaves the door open to patronage and lack of engagement at the local level. That's a big enough problem already that doesn't need to be made worse. A lot of people dismiss it but I still think local engagement is important, if not critical. When the MP isn't directly interacting with their constituents, it leaves the door open for yet another disconnect. So I'm not sure what the best solution is.

As for quality of leadership, I think this can be resolved through better civic engagement. Greater civilian oversight would help keep politicians more honest. The current system doesn't empower people to get involved though. Especially young people. Lack of civics education was the problem when I was in high school. The mandatory volunteer work for high schoolers here in Ontario, while a tad ironic, was a smart idea. It gets kids engaged in some way. I'm also a fan of US style term limits to provide continuing opportunities for new leadership. Eight years seems to be a natural cutoff point before leaders become stale anyway.

Finally, we may need to reevaluate partisan politics. Which is more a philosophical question than a practical one. All parties have good ideas but a lot of them get boxed into these inflexible categories. This encourages divisiveness and the promotion of some pretty rotten ideas.

That was a thoughtful post. Thanks.

 

[cbrunny]

Nm.. I'll come back later.

 

[Blue_Max]

I'm not surprised to see our college-girl SJW hipsters giddy about the results.

Mark my words, you're going to see a rise of religious immigration so high your head will spin. There will be no turning back - just like the rest of Europe. When Germany and UK's tension is also felt here, I suspect the victim mentality will only continue. No acknowledgement they brought it on, only blaming those in power why they didn't "do something". Even after they took the guns away from all but the criminals.

This reminds me of when the same college-liberal soccer moms were outraged about Barbie dolls. Their rage spiralled and demanded something "better". When Barbie didn't change, they turned their eyes to an alternative and adopted, with gusto, Bratz.
Bratz - with far worse qualities of all the things that had outraged them in the first place... but at least it wasn't the same thing that hadn't offended their collective in the first place. [sigh]

Mark my words... very, very bad days are soon coming.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Turnout ended up being the highest since 1993 with 67.6%. When you add in the over 3 million who used the advance polls I'd say a message was sent. This wasn't simply a defeat, it was a repudiation.

With one majority Harper managed to: mostly destroy the remnants of the old Progressive Conservatives in the newer Conservative Party; lose the urban areas of the Prairies; lose the Maritimes and, lose the gains in BC. What do we have left? The old Reform Party with a new name and a worse rep.

Their only hope for the next few years is that the Liberals end up being complete incompetents. That, and hope that Trudeau delivers on his promise to bring in some kind of proportional representation electoral system.

A nice breakdown of the figures:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2287464/federal-election-2015-voter-turnout-highest-since-1997/

We got our "anyone but Harper". Now it's the day after. Should be interesting. :biggrin:

 

[sdifox]

I do regret posting that despite it being the best info I had at the time. Shouldn't have jumped the gun. I'm tired, cranky, and need a Snickers. The last year has worn hard on me so I'm more pissed off at everything in general than usual. I'll end my ranting and go back to being civil if y'all else can. That's the closest thing you'll get to an apology from me so take it or leave it.

Turnout for Federal elections does tend to be better than lower levels of government but even 2/3 (which seems to be the best we can muster lately) is too low. It's difficult to have a functioning democracy when 1/3 of people are disenfranchised, even if it is voluntarily so. The problem seems to be dissatisfaction with the candidates running and a lack of confidence in the system in general. Even a lot of people who did vote said the same thing.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is it alienates a large chunk of voters. 60% of voters did not vote for Trudeau this election, just as 60% of voters did not vote for Harper last election. There's a big disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats held. The problem tends to be alleviated with minority governments. Which I think is the best possible outcome in any election. It's the only real way to put meaningful checks and balances on the ruling party in our system. Simply put, no party should have a monopoly on power without getting at least 50% of the popular vote.

I've seen proportional representation argued as being a potential solution for the problem. It much better reflects popular vote and gives smaller parties a voice in the house. However it's prone to deadlocks. You also don't get to directly choose the people who actually fill the seats. That decision is up to the party. Which leaves the door open to patronage and lack of engagement at the local level. That's a big enough problem already that doesn't need to be made worse. A lot of people dismiss it but I still think local engagement is important, if not critical. When the MP isn't directly interacting with their constituents, it leaves the door open for yet another disconnect. So I'm not sure what the best solution is.

As for quality of leadership, I think this can be resolved through better civic engagement. Greater civilian oversight would help keep politicians more honest. The current system doesn't empower people to get involved though. Especially young people. Lack of civics education was the problem when I was in high school. The mandatory volunteer work for high schoolers here in Ontario, while a tad ironic, was a smart idea. It gets kids engaged in some way. I'm also a fan of US style term limits to provide continuing opportunities for new leadership. Eight years seems to be a natural cutoff point before leaders become stale anyway.

Finally, we may need to reevaluate partisan politics. Which is more a philosophical question than a practical one. All parties have good ideas but a lot of them get boxed into these inflexible categories. This encourages divisiveness and the promotion of some pretty rotten ideas.

It doesn't have to be that way. Even if you just took six electoral distric, merge them and give each person six votes is way better than what we have now.

 

[sdifox]

I'm not surprised to see our college-girl SJW hipsters giddy about the results.

Mark my words, you're going to see a rise of religious immigration so high your head will spin. There will be no turning back - just like the rest of Europe. When Germany and UK's tension is also felt here, I suspect the victim mentality will only continue. No acknowledgement they brought it on, only blaming those in power why they didn't "do something". Even after they took the guns away from all but the criminals.

This reminds me of when the same college-liberal soccer moms were outraged about Barbie dolls. Their rage spiralled and demanded something "better". When Barbie didn't change, they turned their eyes to an alternative and adopted, with gusto, Bratz.
Bratz - with far worse qualities of all the things that had outraged them in the first place... but at least it wasn't the same thing that hadn't offended their collective in the first place. [sigh]

Mark my words... very, very bad days are soon coming.

Where are the puritans running off to now? I mean running to America wasn't far enough.

 

[sdifox]

He will. Government pension, bitches! :awe:


I'm really impressed with Canada's system. Green party has like 1 seat or so? And their leader was still invited to all of the debates? US elections are textbook rigged. The debates are privately run. If you're not accepting bribes or are not worth bribing, you're not invited to the US presidential debates. Even the really popular candidates are completely ignored by the media because they're not corrupt enough.
Daily Show: Ron Paul doesn't exist.

The day minor candidates are not invited to the debates is the day people should have a violent revolution. Don't let Canada turn into the US.

Our debates are changing for the worse. May wasn't at all debates.

 

[Grooveriding]

 

[Spungo]

That, and hope that Trudeau delivers on his promise to bring in some kind of proportional representation electoral system.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The odds of this happening are zero. Leaders only volunteer to give up power when the alternative is death (eg: the Kaiser fleeing Germany).

election results
Conservatives: 29% of seats, 31.9% of popular vote
NDP: 13% of seats, 19.7% of popular vote
Bloc Quebecois: 3% of seats, 4.7% of popular vote
Green: 0.3% of seats, 3.5% of popular vote

I'm sure it's just a coincidence and not intentional yellow journalism, but they forgot to say what percent of people voted Liberal. If we assume all of the people who didn't vote for any of the above 4 parties voted Liberal, we get 100 - 31.9 - 19.7 - 4.7 - 3.5 = 40.2%
Liberal: 54% of seats, 40% of popular vote.
The party with the most seats has the most to lose by implementing democracy, and that's why it will never happen.

Also, good job Canada for not electing Mulcair. My job dealing with rail transport feels safer already.

 

[sdifox]

I said it before and I'll say it again. The odds of this happening are zero. Leaders only volunteer to give up power when the alternative is death (eg: the Kaiser fleeing Germany).

election results
Conservatives: 29% of seats, 31.9% of popular vote
NDP: 13% of seats, 19.7% of popular vote
Bloc Quebecois: 3% of seats, 4.7% of popular vote
Green: 0.3% of seats, 3.5% of popular vote

I'm sure it's just a coincidence and not intentional yellow journalism, but they forgot to say what percent of people voted Liberal. If we assume all of the people who didn't vote for any of the above 4 parties voted Liberal, we get 100 - 31.9 - 19.7 - 4.7 - 3.5 = 40.2%
Liberal: 54% of seats, 40% of popular vote.
The party with the most seats has the most to lose by implementing democracy, and that's why it will never happen.

Also, good job Canada for not electing Mulcair. My job dealing with rail transport feels safer already.

The page you linked to shows 39.5% for liberals.

 

[KMFJD]

I'm not surprised to see our college-girl SJW hipsters giddy about the results.

Mark my words, you're going to see a rise of religious immigration so high your head will spin. There will be no turning back - just like the rest of Europe. When Germany and UK's tension is also felt here, I suspect the victim mentality will only continue. No acknowledgement they brought it on, only blaming those in power why they didn't "do something". Even after they took the guns away from all but the criminals.

This reminds me of when the same college-liberal soccer moms were outraged about Barbie dolls. Their rage spiralled and demanded something "better". When Barbie didn't change, they turned their eyes to an alternative and adopted, with gusto, Bratz.
Bratz - with far worse qualities of all the things that had outraged them in the first place... but at least it wasn't the same thing that hadn't offended their collective in the first place. [sigh]

Mark my words... very, very bad days are soon coming.

they took our guns away?

 

[cbrunny]

I'd rather see a return to a two party system rather than PR. If the NDP dissolves, the Liberals will travel left and the Cons will travel closer to centre. If the Cons dissolve, the Liberals will travel right and the NDP will travel closer to centre.

If the two parties on the left really aren't that different from one another, get rid of one of the three parties. If they are really different from one another, fine, but we need referendum on electoral reform.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Could one of my Canadian neighbors explain what will change and what the risk is?

 

[Denly]

I am not a political geek like others, what I am hoping are the following.

Some kind of election reforms
Real infrastructure improvement
Reevaluate the F35 deal
Reevaluate TPP
Do something on the election ad, I heard on 680 that they don't even have to tell the truth on election ad wtf?
Redo Canada.gc.ca who design that web site? And the actionplan site
Help the 40+ to go back to school part time.

 

[Rebel_L]

Could one of my Canadian neighbors explain what will change and what the risk is?

Nothing really changes, a few proposals or projects that the last gov was working on will be shut down and redone a new way as the new gov wants to be seen as different. New changes to social assistance programs will likely be more of a payout kind rather than a rebate/tax credit kind, yet amounts will work out the same. The new pm is a little more outgoing than the old one so perhaps he will be a little more entertaining or more embarrassing to watch than the last one depending on your perspective. Overall though the status quo will be maintained, the liberals and pc's are only ever different on talking points but both parties are to centrist to actually do anything different. Its always sad that people claim they want change but in the end never vote for it. Perhaps its just a change of the face in charge that people are really looking for, or they are just too easy to dupe into believing what any party says during an election campaign.... you would think people would learn eventually though.

 

[cbrunny]

Nothing really changes, a few proposals or projects that the last gov was working on will be shut down and redone a new way as the new gov wants to be seen as different. New changes to social assistance programs will likely be more of a payout kind rather than a rebate/tax credit kind, yet amounts will work out the same. The new pm is a little more outgoing than the old one so perhaps he will be a little more entertaining or more embarrassing to watch than the last one depending on your perspective. Overall though the status quo will be maintained, the liberals and pc's are only ever different on talking points but both parties are to centrist to actually do anything different. Its always sad that people claim they want change but in the end never vote for it. Perhaps its just a change of the face in charge that people are really looking for, or they are just too easy to dupe into believing what any party says during an election campaign.... you would think people would learn eventually though.

You don't think Trudeau is serious about weed sales? Or Proportional Representation? Or running a deficit intentionally? He even specified exactly which tax cuts he would make and how much they would be cut. F-35s are gone, military spending cut. CPP contributions are going to increase, as will EI.

Surely you're not so cynical that you think nothing will change.

 

[desy]

Turnout ended up being the highest since 1993 with 67.6%. When you add in the over 3 million who used the advance polls I'd say a message was sent. This wasn't simply a defeat, it was a repudiation.



What a pile, Conservatives remained the Opposition which is hardly a blowout and the Libs got a Majority with LESS votes % than the Cons did last time.

Basically, 4th election for Harper = baggage
Next election the Liberals will be defending their dumb decisions too
The party that should be reeling is the NDP, if it wasn't for Van Island it really would have been devastating

I've never had a problem with Past the Post however I do have problems with certain provinces under represented and others over represented in the seat count.
If you were to say take your top two choices you can't assume all the votes would go NDP, that wouldn't be the case, as the Conservatives may just as well be the second choice for small c Liberals

FWIW I did not vote the incumbent party

 

[Rebel_L]

You don't think Trudeau is serious about weed sales? Or Proportional Representation? Or running a deficit intentionally? He even specified exactly which tax cuts he would make and how much they would be cut. F-35s are gone, military spending cut. CPP contributions are going to increase, as will EI.

Surely you're not so cynical that you think nothing will change.

I think you really underestimate the bureaucracy that operates under our parliament. Real change is slow and there is so much push back that unless a party is willing to be a radical all that changes is a bit of window dressing.

As far as the budget goes, its pretty set, if they want more money to play with they have to raise taxes, raise it too much and you make everyone angry and they loose the next election. If they go too big a deficit same thing happens, they have a certain amount of money that can be shoved around to a few different piles, but for the most part they have very few options. If the parties had the power to do what they want don't you think they would hold to a few more of their campaign promises as a rule?

Proportional representation wont happen (its likely already been looked into and known that they cant do it, but it sounds good... there will be a report though im sure) F35's are cut for now, but they will have to get something eventually, could well be like the choppers where it will just cost a ton more in a few years. Military spending is already an oxymoron to begin with, we have the US for that, our military is only for our international reputation.

As for weed, I have no idea how our drug classification system works or how the rules go. I do know there is a lot of bureaucracy involved in that, they may very well not be able to simply do that either, or it could take years... but either way its not really an issue that will affect much. Its a common enough recreational drug as it is that is widely available and enforcement against is pretty lax.

So in the end a bit of window dressing changes, the size of government still grows for seemingly its own sake, and the wealth divide will still continue to enlarge. The sun will also still continue to come up and my life will be affected so little that I hardly notice that anything happened at all.

Political parties are there to stay in power, representing the people is a slogan. You can call me a cynic if you like but know that I would just call you naïve in return.