Vote for whoever can defeat the Conservative in your riding. ABC.
I feel like vote splitting is going to sink everyone again.
It's a conundrum.
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
What would happen if they did the elections in 2 phases? Everyone votes for the person they would prefer in the first vote, then the top 2 candidates from the first vote go on to the 2nd vote. Would that alleviate some of the problems with vote splitting?
(We don't need to get into a giant discussion about the feasibility of something like this. Just hypothetical)
What would happen if they did the elections in 2 phases? Everyone votes for the person they would prefer in the first vote, then the top 2 candidates from the first vote go on to the 2nd vote. Would that alleviate some of the problems with vote splitting?
(We don't need to get into a giant discussion about the feasibility of something like this. Just hypothetical)
Seems redundant. I mean, sure, it would solve vote splitting, but it would be pointless in ridings where the winning candidate already has > 50% of the votes. You might advocate for only holding the run-off election in ridings where that's not the case, but then you create confusion in the system, with some ridings having two elections and some having one and people having to figure out if their riding does or not. Plus you need to schedule two election dates, give people two paid holidays, round up twice the amount of volunteers, and most difficult of all convince people to go to the polls twice.
My personal preference would be for an STV system. Has the same effect you described, except we only vote once and the one ballot contains the information for both votes.
Or maybe negative votes? Like in Toronto, I could be like, I want this person for Mayor. But I really don't want this person for mayor. I wonder what that would end up looking like.
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
People have become much more polarized on what parties they support. We are going on over a decade of Conservative rule.... This is an eternity in modern politics.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+2
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited February 2015
Having a +1 OR -1 vote probably wouldn't work, simply because you could have a situation where most people vote -1 conservative (as an example), more than nullifying the +conservative vote... but end up with some fringe political party that voted only + squeak in.
Although it would be interesting if everyone could cast both one +1 vote and one -1 vote. Hmmm...
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
People have become much more polarized on what parties they support. We are going on over a decade of Conservative rule.... This is an eternity in modern politics.
That was preceded by 13 years of Liberal rule. Which were preceded by 9 years of PC rule. Which were preceded by 21 years of Liberal rule. Canadians like stable governments.
And again, the Harper successes are an aberration, caused by one part internal collapse of the Liberal party, one part CPC electoral fraud, and two parts Harper bullying. Calling this the new reality of Canadian politics is just false.
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
People have become much more polarized on what parties they support. We are going on over a decade of Conservative rule.... This is an eternity in modern politics.
That was preceded by 13 years of Liberal rule. Which were preceded by 9 years of PC rule. Which were preceded by 21 years of Liberal rule. Canadians like stable governments.
And again, the Harper successes are an aberration, caused by one part internal collapse of the Liberal party, one part CPC electoral fraud, and two parts Harper bullying. Calling this the new reality of Canadian politics is just false.
Call it what you want but it's a fact that if people do no unite behind either the liberals (my vote) or the NDP then the Conservatives will win.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+2
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
People have become much more polarized on what parties they support. We are going on over a decade of Conservative rule.... This is an eternity in modern politics.
That was preceded by 13 years of Liberal rule. Which were preceded by 9 years of PC rule. Which were preceded by 21 years of Liberal rule. Canadians like stable governments.
And again, the Harper successes are an aberration, caused by one part internal collapse of the Liberal party, one part CPC electoral fraud, and two parts Harper bullying. Calling this the new reality of Canadian politics is just false.
Call it what you want but it's a fact that if people do no unite behind either the liberals (my vote) or the NDP then the Conservatives will win.
I'm not sure anything in electoral politics is ever a fact.
For instance, Harper really did put all of our eggs in the oil basket, and if crude prices remain low the economy could tank, meaning the conservatives could conceivably take third place in the next election, regardless of whether people unite behind another party.
So far Harper has faced Paul Martin, who was barely even in control of the Liberal party in the wake of the Chrétien years, then Dion, who had zero charisma and a divided party, and then Ignatieff, who was literally a complete outsider with zero political reputation. Against them he scored two minorities and a barely-majority.
Now he's going up against Trudeau, a charismatic leader seemingly immune to CPC attack ads, backed by a united Liberal party and flanked by high-ranking CPC defectors. And at a time all the corruption and incompetence of his administration are starting to catch up to him. The "fact" of Harper's victory this fall is anything but.
As for after the election, let's not forget that the deep divisions between the socially-progressive fiscally-conservative PC and the socially-fanatically-regressive fiscally-irresponsible CRAP were never solved in the CPC merger, they were simply bullied down by Harper and the appeal of power. Get the CPC out of power and replace Harper by a true believer from either side, and all those problems will crop up again and the party could very well explode.
And back to Québec, because really, what province has more interesting politics?
1%er media mogul and PQ leadership front-runner PKP, pictured here winning a Mr. Bean look-alike contest
decided to relax by going to a music festival, standing in the crowd, and heckling the Québécois band by yelling at them to sing in French. Because apparently that's how a potential Premier is supposed to behave. But to be fair, singing in English is a completely un-Québécois thing to do, as I assume PKP has made clear to his wife's close friend, one exclusively-French-singing star little known outside the borders of our province and called Céline Dion.
She has little chance of winning the nomination, particularly if one of the Volpes enters the race. I'm not sure how she'll react after losing, though. She and Soudas don't seem to want to quietly fade into obscurity.
She has little chance of winning the nomination, particularly if one of the Volpes enters the race. I'm not sure how she'll react after losing, though. She and Soudas don't seem to want to quietly fade into obscurity.
On the one hand, a lot of people I know in that riding hate Joe Volpe. My best friend's family voted Volpe, but only because they hated Oliver more. Purportedly, debates between them seemed like slimy used car salesman contests.
On the other hand, Eve Adams literally seems like she has nothing to contribute to humanity.
Poor Eglinton-Lawrence: how do you get such a terrible slate of candidates? What deity did they piss off so badly?
So I saw a clip of Adams in a morning show. The host (a woman) asked her what role her fiancé Soutas played in her decision. She replied "This is like a question from the 1950s. I can't remember the last time a male politician was asked what role his wife played in his decision."
And just like that, she became one of my favourite politician in Ottawa today.
“The court obviously and respectfully did much of the introspective research and respectful deliberation that is incumbent upon our department and the government to now do as well,” MacKay said, standing in the same lawyers’ robes he wore to argue a case before the court many years ago.
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
“The court obviously and respectfully did much of the introspective research and respectful deliberation that is incumbent upon our department and the government to now do as well,” MacKay said, standing in the same lawyers’ robes he wore to argue a case before the court many years ago.
The other part is that clause has never been used, so I don't think they're going to pull it out now, especially for something that has the full weight of the supreme court and a good deal of public opinion behind it.
The Harper government's approach so far on laws the SC forced them to change has been to run the clock and then pass a reworded version of the same law at the eleventh hour. And in this case, with the one-year delay taking them to the other side of an election and both their stated position and their base being against euthanasia but public opinion being for it, you can bet they won't be in any rush to act. In fact, I'll bet some former CRAP candidates in more right-wing ridings will seize the opportunity to make stopping this (never mind that they can't) into a campaign issue.
“The court obviously and respectfully did much of the introspective research and respectful deliberation that is incumbent upon our department and the government to now do as well,” MacKay said, standing in the same lawyers’ robes he wore to argue a case before the court many years ago.
The other part is that clause has never been used, so I don't think they're going to pull it out now, especially for something that has the full weight of the supreme court and a good deal of public opinion behind it.
Yeah, it'd be a hugely controversial move for what would ultimately be just kicking the can down the road a few years. I imagine they figured they'd rather deal with it now, while they know they're still in power.
I tend to disagree. Of course it's fair to assume that someone, regardless of gender, will talk to their fiancée before making a major career change, and especially when it's a career change they plan to make together, as appears to be the case now. But the issue I (and I guess her, and I would hope a few others) have is that only for women does this become a public question. No one asked Stephen Harper what his wife thought of his decision to merge the CRAP and PC, and no one asked Ignatieff what his wife's input was in his decision to move back to Canada and lead the Liberal Party, yet both of these were much bigger decisions than the one Adams took, which I would assume were surrounded by much more lengthy and interesting conversations between spouses. So what's the difference that singled out Adams for this question?
We'll see. If someone asks Soudas what role his fiancée played in his decision, I'll eat my words.
Well, to be fair, Lauren Harper is not a conservative party strategist. If she moved to the Liberal party then suddenly so did Steven would that be an unfair question to ask him? I consider myself a feminist but in this case it's a legitimate question.
Yeah, the difference here is that not only is Adams' fiance a former member of Harper's inner circle, he's been in trouble for interfering in the riding nomination process on her behalf. They've got a history of being in political hot water together. If Soudas made himself available for interviews, I'd hope that an interviewer or two asked him whether he was following Adams to the Libs.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Richy, just last page you were speculating that the only reason Adams is being admitted to the Liberals with all her baggage is because of what Soudis is bringing with him. I don't think a host is reverting to regressive gender roles to ask her about it directly.
Richy, just last page you were speculating that the only reason Adams is being admitted to the Liberals with all her baggage is because of what Soudis is bringing with him. I don't think a host is reverting to regressive gender roles to ask her about it directly.
I mean, it might be, but circumstances make it impossible for us to tell.
Great, my local paper will be blaming cable companies, competing news networks, and liberal elites for 'conspiring' to shut down the mighty voice of freedom.
Posts
I feel like vote splitting is going to sink everyone again.
It's a conundrum.
- Maintaining the status quo will result in a conservative government. Maybe just a minority government, because for some reason I don't understand a coalition is evil?
- Going to a two party system would result in a liberal/NDP majority. But we'd be hosed like the states if the parties just both decided to be awful.
What we really need is a revamping of the democracy- something more representative. Unfortunately, the odds of this seem poor
The status quo has given more Liberal majority governments than anything else in the last 100 years. The Harper minority/majority governments are an aberration, not a norm.
But I agree, FPTP has outlived its usefulness by a long, long time. Once the Boomers that are propping it up because change is scary and wrong all die off maybe we can finally have some electoral reform and a more sane and representative system.
(We don't need to get into a giant discussion about the feasibility of something like this. Just hypothetical)
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
Seems redundant. I mean, sure, it would solve vote splitting, but it would be pointless in ridings where the winning candidate already has > 50% of the votes. You might advocate for only holding the run-off election in ridings where that's not the case, but then you create confusion in the system, with some ridings having two elections and some having one and people having to figure out if their riding does or not. Plus you need to schedule two election dates, give people two paid holidays, round up twice the amount of volunteers, and most difficult of all convince people to go to the polls twice.
My personal preference would be for an STV system. Has the same effect you described, except we only vote once and the one ballot contains the information for both votes.
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
People have become much more polarized on what parties they support. We are going on over a decade of Conservative rule.... This is an eternity in modern politics.
Although it would be interesting if everyone could cast both one +1 vote and one -1 vote. Hmmm...
That was preceded by 13 years of Liberal rule. Which were preceded by 9 years of PC rule. Which were preceded by 21 years of Liberal rule. Canadians like stable governments.
And again, the Harper successes are an aberration, caused by one part internal collapse of the Liberal party, one part CPC electoral fraud, and two parts Harper bullying. Calling this the new reality of Canadian politics is just false.
Call it what you want but it's a fact that if people do no unite behind either the liberals (my vote) or the NDP then the Conservatives will win.
I'm not sure anything in electoral politics is ever a fact.
For instance, Harper really did put all of our eggs in the oil basket, and if crude prices remain low the economy could tank, meaning the conservatives could conceivably take third place in the next election, regardless of whether people unite behind another party.
Now he's going up against Trudeau, a charismatic leader seemingly immune to CPC attack ads, backed by a united Liberal party and flanked by high-ranking CPC defectors. And at a time all the corruption and incompetence of his administration are starting to catch up to him. The "fact" of Harper's victory this fall is anything but.
As for after the election, let's not forget that the deep divisions between the socially-progressive fiscally-conservative PC and the socially-fanatically-regressive fiscally-irresponsible CRAP were never solved in the CPC merger, they were simply bullied down by Harper and the appeal of power. Get the CPC out of power and replace Harper by a true believer from either side, and all those problems will crop up again and the party could very well explode.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mike-colle-says-it-s-preposterous-for-eve-adams-to-join-liberals-1.2952483
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2652229368/
1%er media mogul and PQ leadership front-runner PKP, pictured here winning a Mr. Bean look-alike contest
decided to relax by going to a music festival, standing in the crowd, and heckling the Québécois band by yelling at them to sing in French. Because apparently that's how a potential Premier is supposed to behave. But to be fair, singing in English is a completely un-Québécois thing to do, as I assume PKP has made clear to his wife's close friend, one exclusively-French-singing star little known outside the borders of our province and called Céline Dion.
She has little chance of winning the nomination, particularly if one of the Volpes enters the race. I'm not sure how she'll react after losing, though. She and Soudas don't seem to want to quietly fade into obscurity.
On the one hand, a lot of people I know in that riding hate Joe Volpe. My best friend's family voted Volpe, but only because they hated Oliver more. Purportedly, debates between them seemed like slimy used car salesman contests.
On the other hand, Eve Adams literally seems like she has nothing to contribute to humanity.
Poor Eglinton-Lawrence: how do you get such a terrible slate of candidates? What deity did they piss off so badly?
And just like that, she became one of my favourite politician in Ottawa today.
The other part is that clause has never been used, so I don't think they're going to pull it out now, especially for something that has the full weight of the supreme court and a good deal of public opinion behind it.
Yeah, it'd be a hugely controversial move for what would ultimately be just kicking the can down the road a few years. I imagine they figured they'd rather deal with it now, while they know they're still in power.
I tend to disagree. Of course it's fair to assume that someone, regardless of gender, will talk to their fiancée before making a major career change, and especially when it's a career change they plan to make together, as appears to be the case now. But the issue I (and I guess her, and I would hope a few others) have is that only for women does this become a public question. No one asked Stephen Harper what his wife thought of his decision to merge the CRAP and PC, and no one asked Ignatieff what his wife's input was in his decision to move back to Canada and lead the Liberal Party, yet both of these were much bigger decisions than the one Adams took, which I would assume were surrounded by much more lengthy and interesting conversations between spouses. So what's the difference that singled out Adams for this question?
We'll see. If someone asks Soudas what role his fiancée played in his decision, I'll eat my words.
MWO: Adamski
I mean, it might be, but circumstances make it impossible for us to tell.
Tomorrow will be a good day!
But seriously, fuck Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley... Would fucking love to see those two get laid off every fucking day of the week.
This just renewed my faith in the Canadian people.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Check out @KentThornhillMP's Tweet:
Typical Liberal big nanny-state government not making us all pay for a TV channel we don't want to watch.
"Canadian media outlets want the government to solve everything"... Well said, Ezra.