Other than the period 1872-1917 Canada has had 3 or more federal parties. Our very first election had 3 parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
It's kind of sad that you apparently didn't know that.
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.
Other than the period 1872-1917 Canada has had 3 or more federal parties. Our very first election had 3 parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
It's kind of sad that you apparently didn't know that.
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
Most likely, ranked ballots would benefit the middle party. That's not going to be universal of course.
As usual, ~40% of the population has decided what will happen to everyone. 60% of the votes were in fact meaningless and will have no influence on policy over the next four years.
In practice, the 10-15% of the population that actually changes their vote, runs the country.
A preferential (ranked) ballot returns a majority for the candidate that electors choose best to represent them. To win a riding, and partucularly an overall government, parties will have to be more moderate, and certainly steer away from the extremist fringe that Harper cornered his Conservatives into.Most likely, ranked ballots would benefit the middle party. That's not going to be universal of course.
In this election, the Conservatives demonstrated that their relatively radical and marginalizing positions removed a potential for electoral growth. They were sick with their limited base. The government was to go to either the NDP or Liberals, or a coalition of the two. Only those parties had such room to grow and have ejectors make the decision to dominate the Conservative base.
From yesterday's results, a preferential ballot probably still would have returned a Liberal majority, with the NDP having won a few more seats, constrasting to the Conservatives even losing some of their closer races in Alberta.
The majority of voters will have a stronger say. Majority or plurality governments will still happen. Nothing wrong with a coalition of when they do occur. It's the right of the electors to choose representation and parties. We can dismiss cbrunnies fear mongering of coalitions and desire to limit democracy to only two parties as foolish fix of the first-past-the-post failings. We have a plurality of parties so it is in our interest to reform elections to beat represent reality.
A preferential ballot enables the possible riding-per-riding growth/representation of less dominating parties, as electors will no longer feel as though they are 'throwing away a vote,' as the electors have a second, third and so on as options for ranking competing candidates who are also viable for representation.
A far superior method for democratic representation. The least popular first choice candidates get removed from the count, and a recount resumes until a winner has the majority support. In essence, the return of run-off elections within a single vote.
A preferential ballot has has been presented by Trudeau as the Liberal preferred method of election reform rather than proportional representation.
[
Next election the Liberals will be defending their dumb decisions too
Or if they legalize and regulate marijuana, they'll win a landslide second term. Law enforcement spending could be dramatically reduced while tax revenue dramatically increases. Look how much the government is able to rape people on alcohol sales. I remember people talking about corn ethanol for our cars costing about $5/gallon. Based on that number, alcohol that is ~90% pure should cost about $1 for 1/5 of a gallon (about 757mL). As I said earlier, I paid about $25 for a bottle of vodka in Canada, and that vodka was 40% pure instead of 90%. The alcohol is worth about $0.50 and then $24.50 of tax is thrown on top? Even if I get very generous and round that up to $1 of alcohol with $24 tax, that's still a tax rate of 2400%. Imagine applying that tax rate to all marijuana sales, and that includes millions of pounds of marijuana that would be smuggled into the US.
You know the government doesn't make alcoholic beverages right? That's still private companies.
Says plenty to his lack of integrity and character.Stevie was not man enough to resign in his concession speech, instead issued a press release while he was speaking...
yahoo finance - Smirnoff parent company
Profit margin: 22%
The alcohol is worth $0.80, Smirnoff pockets $0.20,the government pockets $24.
Actually that doesn't factor in store and transport. Let's say $5 is the actual cost. That would drop the tax rate to something more reasonable like 300-400%. Think of it like a bottle of water since it's about the same size as water and it's the same weight, but it's a bottle of water that costs $2/gallon to fill instead of costing ~nothing to fill.
Price of ethanol in Nebraska: less than $2 per gallon. (doesn't include cost of shipping, cost of keeping stock, cost of insurance and theft)
It's really hard to get any data on anything that happens in Canada, so here's some data about the US. American and Canadian policies are generally very similar. Rates will differ, but the general scheme is the same.As I mentioned earlier, this is due to the brick-and-mortar stores everywhere and unionized cashiers making $25/hr+ plus benefits.
It's really hard to get any data on anything that happens in Canada, so here's some data about the US. American and Canadian policies are generally very similar. Rates will differ, but the general scheme is the same.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/map-spirits-excise-tax-rates-state-2014
In Washington, where alcohol is still roughly half the price it is in Alberta, the tax on spirits is $35 per gallon. The alcohol itself is worth less than $2 per gallon. The cost of packaging and distribution would be the same as that for bottled water. Even if you're paying union wages, a bottle of vodka would still cost about $5 if there were no taxes on it.
The best source I can find for any part of Canada is here, dated 2006:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/em/edn9/edn9-e.html
$11.696 per liter of absolute ethyl alcohol. That's about $44 per gallon, and that's only federal tax. Add provincial and municipal taxes on top of that. Another thing governments love doing is charging sales tax on top of the excise tax. You bring a bottle to the counter that contains $5 of product, $20 of tax, and then they charge sales tax on $25. Unbelievable.
Tobacco works like this too. Cigarettes are very expensive because the taxes on them are very high. Gasoline is like this too, especially in Europe. The gasoline itself will be $1, but then the government piles on $1 in taxes to bring the price up to $2/L ($7.50/gallon).
I don't think I follow your point.
I think the whole point was just that marijuana tax could be a great new revenue source, coupled with less law enforcement expenses would give them the ability to pay for new things without having to raise income tax or run big deficits. That's usually a good way to keep everyone happy and get voted in again.
40% was the margin on LCBO only. Look at the margin the Government of Canada gets on that. $44/gallon is the tax rate, and it probably doesn't cost anywhere near that much to enforce the taxation scheme.Ah ok. it could be a great new revenue source, but I don't think it will be. Alcohol is taxed out the asshole right now and only a 40% margin remains. No idea what costs are to grow weed but I think that distillery equipment is probably more expensive than greenhouse equipment. A guess though. Since sales costs will probably be similar to the LCBO model, I'm not sure it will raise all that much money. More people will buy alcohol from the Liquor Control Boards than will buy marijuana from the Marijuana control board.
40% was the margin on LCBO only. Look at the margin the Government of Canada gets on that. $44/gallon is the tax rate, and it probably doesn't cost anywhere near that much to enforce the taxation scheme.
I'm not trying to be a jerk but I don't understand what this means. Of all revenue that the LCBO brought in, about 40% of it went to the government. The other 60% went to operating expenses.
I am sure that a good chunk of the tax is federal, I don't know how they report revenue (if it includes taxes collected or not) but either way the federal portion would be an expense that gets sent to the feds for sure, although I would guess the provincial portion would as well. So either the tax's are not reported as revenue or they are also in the expenses for LCBO. That makes the money the gov gets much more than what LCBO reports as profit.