We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

1899092949598

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    hehehe seen on Twitter "Patrice Roy deserves the Nobel Prize in patience."

    sig.gif
  • Descendant XDescendant X Outpost 31Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Singh refusing to answer questions from RNN. Good. I just realized too they did not ask anything to Blanchet.

    I wish Trudeau had ignored them as well.

    EDIT:
    May also answering RNN's nonsensical questions, about Khadr.

    There are few things more infuriating to me than the right’s fixation with Omar Khadr. It gets brought up every now and then by clients of mine, and while I invariably explain why they’re wrong in a patient manner, inside I am shrieking with rage at why they’re so hung up about it.

    It’s fucking ridiculous.

    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
    mrondeauAegisCanadianWolverineShadowhopeGnome-InterruptusSealCaulk Bite 6
  • talmeirtalmeir Registered User regular
    Referring to Richy’s post above about Rebel News (I am not allowed to post links because I am an infrequent contributor).

    Honest question: Would you consider “Rebel News” to be press? I know the person asking the questions got a court injunction to rep as a journalist, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

    MSM journos on Twitter went ape over the questions being lobbed by him. A lot were frankly disgusted by the presence of RNN.

    Finally, on Trudeau answering the question - it may be that this needs to be done. It might be strategic, and shows he isn’t afraid to meet them head on. Generally, ignoring people who hold/promote extreme views is one of the ways those extreme views can be propogated. It is spun as politicos dismissing concerns of the common (wo)man.

  • Descendant XDescendant X Outpost 31Registered User regular
    Rebel News is the press in the same way that Chuck Tingle is a Hugo-nominated author.

    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
    John C. TurbineShadowhopeCaulk Bite 6
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    and voted

    once again by voting against the NDP in my riding my vote has been wasted. oh well.
    http://338canada.com/districts/59035e.htm

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    talmeir wrote: »
    Referring to Richy’s post above about Rebel News (I am not allowed to post links because I am an infrequent contributor).

    Honest question: Would you consider “Rebel News” to be press? I know the person asking the questions got a court injunction to rep as a journalist, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

    MSM journos on Twitter went ape over the questions being lobbed by him. A lot were frankly disgusted by the presence of RNN.

    Finally, on Trudeau answering the question - it may be that this needs to be done. It might be strategic, and shows he isn’t afraid to meet them head on. Generally, ignoring people who hold/promote extreme views is one of the ways those extreme views can be propogated. It is spun as politicos dismissing concerns of the common (wo)man.

    No, I would not. They are partisans pushing an agenda (and an extremist one, not that it matters to the question) masquerading as news to hide their true intent and deceive the public.

    The news has a duty to inform the public about facts in an objective manner. Rebel and True North and others like them do not perform that duty by any standard, and therefore are not news.

    sig.gif
    Descendant XAegistalmeirZibblsnrtAridholshrykeCanadianWolverineJohn C. TurbineShadowenArcticLancerGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggageLordSolarMachariusCaulk Bite 6El Mucho
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    The green is likely to get in here, David Merner :(

    Both the NDP and Liberals are projected to be below the cons even.

    http://338canada.com/districts/59026e.htm

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    talmeir wrote: »
    Referring to Richy’s post above about Rebel News (I am not allowed to post links because I am an infrequent contributor).

    Honest question: Would you consider “Rebel News” to be press? I know the person asking the questions got a court injunction to rep as a journalist, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

    The bulk of their big names are and have been somewhere between "winking white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi who isn't even pretending to hide it," and routinely throw themselves full-bore into making stories up if the facts aren't convenient (still suggesting Bissonnette wasn't the mosque shooter, fabricating stories about refugees getting away with attempted murder in Canadian schools, etc), and their journalistic standards extend no further than "will this make someone to our left look bad?"

    I'm terms of ethics, basic competence and respect for truth, I'm more a member of the press than they are.

    John C. TurbineRichyShadowenArcticLancerGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggageCaulk Bite 6
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    and voted

    once again by voting against the NDP in my riding my vote has been wasted. oh well.
    http://338canada.com/districts/59035e.htm

    Same boat. While I skew Liberal, I want to throw the NDP a vote in my riding. However I'd be better off voting Liberal for my ABC vote.

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Etiowsa wrote: »
    If we end up in minority territory, which is likely at this point, I really hope we get some actual movement on electoral reform. I'm pretty confident the NDP have way more support than is reflected in the polls, because people are afraid to vote for them and get conservatives. If we had ranked ballot they'd probably gain 10% at least.

    Nah. They fought ranked ballots for a reason. Ranked Ballots mean Liberals dominate federal politics because they would be a ton of people's second choice. Both from the NDP and the Cons. And the Greens too probably, although maybe 3rd there. Ranked ballots mean every race where the NDP and the Liberals are cock-blocking each other now goes Liberal. Ranked ballot probably kills the NDP's chances of ever being anything but what they were pre- and looking like post-Layton: a distant 3rd minor party.

    The NDP wanted a proportional system because that's the kind of system that enhances the power of minority parties.

    As someone who's supportive of the NDP, I'd rather every race where the NDP and the Liberals are cock-blocking each other go Liberal than Conservative. But ultimately, I don't think a ranked ballot would result in some sort of permanent Liberal Hegemony, which I know many fear/want. I think it would free the leftist vote from "strategic" casts, and still result in swings from election to election. Just now, the NDP would benefit from the Liberals ebbing instead of the Conservatives.

    Canadians will get mad and "vote the bums out" every once in awhile, and it might greatly help the NDP if hold-out Liberal voters could put them as number 2. Like in last year's Ontario election, where my riding (traditionally Conservative, but steadily changing to Liberal) went 40% PC, 29% NDP, 24% Lib. Compared to the previous election, only 3 percent of the Liberal vote moved to the Cons, with 14 going to the NDP and under 1 to the Greens. There's no guarantee that under a ranked ballot enough of those Liberal die-hards would put the NDP at number two, but... there's a realistic shot that they could have won this seat under a ranked ballot.

    In any election there would be a small but not insignificant number of people that would go from reliably-Liberal to NDP-1/LPC-2. Whereas, while many NDP faithful would favour the Liberals as a second or third choice, I don't see a lot switching them to number one. So a ranked ballot would likely see a general increase in NDP support, at no risk of loss of seats. It would still be good for the NDP (just not as consistently good as MMP). I also don't think it would forever relegate them to minor party status any more than an MMP system would. Yes, they'd have to rely on weird elections like Ontario-2018 to get any control, but... they would also need that under MMP, wouldn't they? I think MMP just results in the NDP being permanent king makers, which has it's own positives and negatives.

    Ultimately, the Cons (despite using a ranked ballot for party votes) will never be down for anything but FPTP federally. The Liberals are down for a ranked ballot; I really think the NDP should go for it.

    If Trudeau and the NDP had met in the middle after the ERRE had tabled their report to the government, Liberals could have had a Ranked Ballot, the NDP a proportional result: Its called Single Transferable Vote (STV).

    Instead Trudeau's government declared the process dead.

    The NDP's response all these years later after Nathan Cullen (MP) said Trudeau was a liar: They are the only party with concrete support for Electoral Reform in their platform, Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) with a sunset clause, that after its implemented and all Canadians are intimate with the details through personal experience voting with the new system, then make an informed decision in the proceeding Referendum on if we keep it or go back to FPTP and all its incentivization of divisive politics and the disenfranchmisement of voters. The above campaign platform plank covers all the reccomendations of the ERRE.
    The Committee recommends that:

    The Government hold a referendum, in which the current system is on the ballot;
    That the referendum propose a proportional electoral system that achieves a Gallagher Index score of 5 or less;
    and That the Government complete the design of the alternate electoral system that is proposed on the referendum ballot prior to the start of the referendum campaign period

    The Liberals could have had Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), the kind of ranked voting for just one seat / no proportional, on their costed campaign platform. They did not.

    The Greens could have had Single Transferable Vote (STV) on their costed campaign platform, instead opting to call for yet another Citizen's Assembly, essentially restarting this whole process from the ground up where it would still have to take years to come into effect, effectively missing the next election and kicking the whole issue down the road, so we'd still be using FPTP.

    The Conservatives despite using IRV for their leadership convention ... only just released their full campaign just today, after the debates. Nothing to see here on this front either to the best of my knowledge.

    That's narrowing down my choice for which local candidate I support with my vote quite significantly, as far as I am concerned, the issue of FPTP needing to be ended is Strategic Vote 2.0 - if any of the other parties had put a concrete plan for a new voting system with a sunset clause in their platforms, this would be a WAY harder call to recommend the NDP be our vote for an improved democracy.

    Pragmatically speaking, its the only choice that is a vote against FPTP ... which shuts down the Conservative manipulation of that system, doing a much more lasting hurt to their political chances to form a majority of seats from fiercely loyal minority voting blocks in our ridings.

    Edit: Forgot to add in the recommendations of the committee

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Singh refusing to answer questions from RNN. Good. I just realized too they did not ask anything to Blanchet.

    I wish Trudeau had ignored them as well.

    EDIT:
    May also answering RNN's nonsensical questions, about Khadr.

    Here it is:


    I haven't been able to find the video of Singh waving at the reporter though, anyone have that clip somewhere or as part of a saved stream?

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Etiowsa wrote: »
    If we end up in minority territory, which is likely at this point, I really hope we get some actual movement on electoral reform. I'm pretty confident the NDP have way more support than is reflected in the polls, because people are afraid to vote for them and get conservatives. If we had ranked ballot they'd probably gain 10% at least.

    Nah. They fought ranked ballots for a reason. Ranked Ballots mean Liberals dominate federal politics because they would be a ton of people's second choice. Both from the NDP and the Cons. And the Greens too probably, although maybe 3rd there. Ranked ballots mean every race where the NDP and the Liberals are cock-blocking each other now goes Liberal. Ranked ballot probably kills the NDP's chances of ever being anything but what they were pre- and looking like post-Layton: a distant 3rd minor party.

    The NDP wanted a proportional system because that's the kind of system that enhances the power of minority parties.

    As someone who's supportive of the NDP, I'd rather every race where the NDP and the Liberals are cock-blocking each other go Liberal than Conservative. But ultimately, I don't think a ranked ballot would result in some sort of permanent Liberal Hegemony, which I know many fear/want. I think it would free the leftist vote from "strategic" casts, and still result in swings from election to election. Just now, the NDP would benefit from the Liberals ebbing instead of the Conservatives.

    Canadians will get mad and "vote the bums out" every once in awhile, and it might greatly help the NDP if hold-out Liberal voters could put them as number 2. Like in last year's Ontario election, where my riding (traditionally Conservative, but steadily changing to Liberal) went 40% PC, 29% NDP, 24% Lib. Compared to the previous election, only 3 percent of the Liberal vote moved to the Cons, with 14 going to the NDP and under 1 to the Greens. There's no guarantee that under a ranked ballot enough of those Liberal die-hards would put the NDP at number two, but... there's a realistic shot that they could have won this seat under a ranked ballot.

    In any election there would be a small but not insignificant number of people that would go from reliably-Liberal to NDP-1/LPC-2. Whereas, while many NDP faithful would favour the Liberals as a second or third choice, I don't see a lot switching them to number one. So a ranked ballot would likely see a general increase in NDP support, at no risk of loss of seats. It would still be good for the NDP (just not as consistently good as MMP). I also don't think it would forever relegate them to minor party status any more than an MMP system would. Yes, they'd have to rely on weird elections like Ontario-2018 to get any control, but... they would also need that under MMP, wouldn't they? I think MMP just results in the NDP being permanent king makers, which has it's own positives and negatives.

    Ultimately, the Cons (despite using a ranked ballot for party votes) will never be down for anything but FPTP federally. The Liberals are down for a ranked ballot; I really think the NDP should go for it.

    If Trudeau and the NDP had met in the middle after the ERRE had tabled their report to the government, Liberals could have had a Ranked Ballot, the NDP a proportional result: Its called Single Transferable Vote (STV).

    Instead Trudeau's government declared the process dead.

    The NDP's response all these years later after Nathan Cullen (MP) said Trudeau was a liar: They are the only party with concrete support for Electoral Reform in their platform, Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) with a sunset clause, that after its implemented and all Canadians are intimate with the details through personal experience voting with the new system, then make an informed decision in the proceeding Referendum on if we keep it or go back to FPTP and all its incentivization of divisive politics and the disenfranchmisement of voters.

    The Liberals could have had Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), the kind of ranked voting for just one seat / no proportional, on their costed campaign platform. They did not.

    The Greens could have had Single Transferable Vote (STV) on their costed campaign platform, instead opting to call for yet another Citizen's Assembly, essentially restarting this whole process from the ground up where it would still have to take years to come into effect, effectively missing the next election and kicking the whole issue down the road, so we'd still be using FPTP.

    The Conservatives despite using IRV for their leadership convention ... only just released their full campaign just today, after the debates. Nothing to see here on this front either to the best of my knowledge.

    That's narrowing down my choice for which local candidate I support with my vote quite significantly, as far as I am concerned, the issue of FPTP needing to be ended is Strategic Vote 2.0 - if any of the other parties had put a concrete plan for a new voting system with a sunset clause in their platforms, this would be a WAY harder call to recommend the NDP be our vote for an improved democracy.

    Pragmatically speaking, its the only choice that is a vote against FPTP ... which shuts down the Conservative manipulation of that system, doing a much more lasting hurt to their political chances to form a majority of seats from fiercely loyal minority voting blocks in our ridings.

    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    steam_sig.png
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    Decius wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    and voted

    once again by voting against the NDP in my riding my vote has been wasted. oh well.
    http://338canada.com/districts/59035e.htm

    Same boat. While I skew Liberal, I want to throw the NDP a vote in my riding. However I'd be better off voting Liberal for my ABC vote.

    The Edmonton and Calgary 338 maps right now are bananas. COMPLETELY blue.


    wtf alberta

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    Depending on what part of IRV appeals to you. If like PR but want to be able to vote for Your MP then yes, STV would be fine. If you want to cut down on strategic voting while preserving the majority-government options then it's useless.

    Also I didn't realize the NDP platform included a referendum, which... I don't know what that means, if the referendum fails they'll give up on reform forever? Or is this the Brexit strategy "surely the people will never choose the bad option"? We had a real nail-biter twenty-odd years ago and I'm not interested in going through that again.

    Tenek on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I haven't been able to find the video of Singh waving at the reporter though, anyone have that clip somewhere or as part of a saved stream?


    Skip to 2:50:43. Or do what I did and watch the full 4 hours of it.

    sig.gif
    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    No. Not if you are against proportional systems it's not.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Fun - we voted, and I learned that we have a local candidate for the Animal Protection Party. Who knew!?

    ArcticLancer on
    TubularLuggage
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Driving through the riding of Halifax tonight (which is one of the ridings in ... well, Halifax). Lots of Liberal and NDP signs, a good number of Green signs, while I think I may have seen one smaller CPC sign.
    Looks like that's about right;
    http://338canada.com/districts/12005e.htm

    Seeing the CPC in 4th somewhere is always a fun sight.

    Meanwhile, back in my riding, I voted today. Just the standard parties, but the vibe around here seems promising.

    TubularLuggage on
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    and voted

    once again by voting against the NDP in my riding my vote has been wasted. oh well.
    http://338canada.com/districts/59035e.htm

    Same boat. While I skew Liberal, I want to throw the NDP a vote in my riding. However I'd be better off voting Liberal for my ABC vote.

    The Edmonton and Calgary 338 maps right now are bananas. COMPLETELY blue.


    wtf alberta

    Doesn’t surprise me in least, though we will likely get our couple of left leaning seats in.

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    No. Not if you are against proportional systems it's not.

    You're saying the Liberals are unable to compromise? That doesn't bode well for a minority government or coalition situation :(

    steam_sig.png
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    Hardtarget wrote: »
    and voted

    once again by voting against the NDP in my riding my vote has been wasted. oh well.
    http://338canada.com/districts/59035e.htm

    Same boat. While I skew Liberal, I want to throw the NDP a vote in my riding. However I'd be better off voting Liberal for my ABC vote.

    The Edmonton and Calgary 338 maps right now are bananas. COMPLETELY blue.


    wtf alberta

    Riding level polling is pretty tricky, and some of it tends to be interpreted from provincial polling IIRC. It's possible that some CPC ridings being overwhelmingly conservative in AB are skewing those city ridings in the projections.

    CanadianWolverineGnome-InterruptusCaedwyrAegisshryke
  • HandkorHandkor Registered User regular
    Voted tonight and after looking at 338 I now understand why the Liberals keep calling my house (daily), cause the Bloc is currently trending here by less than 1%. If it wasn't a robot I could at least tell them to stop calling, my vote has been cast.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Driving through the riding of Halifax tonight (which is one of the ridings in ... well, Halifax). Lots of Liberal and NDP signs, a good number of Green signs, while I think I may have seen one smaller CPC sign.
    Looks like that's about right;
    http://338canada.com/districts/12005e.htm

    Seeing the CPC in 4th somewhere is always a fun sight.

    Meanwhile, back in my riding, I voted today. Just the standard parties, but the vibe around here seems promising.
    Yeah, any of my walks to work are littered with NDP and Green signs, with a single LPC sign. The only CPC sign I've seen is planted at an intersection nearby, so doesn't seem particularly owned by anyone. Which is all to say I've definitely had a skewed perception around here and I'm likely to be disappointed by the results. :P

  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular

    Here in Halifax West, I keep seeing Liberal/Green party signs. Looking at 338, it seems that Geoff Regan is likely to repeat, but his biggest competition is the Conservatives, followed by the Greens. So, I'll be voting for the Liberals again. I'm not exactly excited about that, but I don't want to help put a Conservative in, and while I prefer the Greens to the Conservatives they're behind the Liberals and NDP for me.

    As much as I want the PPC to split votes with the Conservatives, I'm also extremely gratified that they're currently polling at 3%, +/- 2%.

    Stay at home every morning from the health department warning, take the 8:15 in to the kitchen
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    No. Not if you are against proportional systems it's not.

    You're saying the Liberals are unable to compromise? That doesn't bode well for a minority government or coalition situation :(

    The closest thing to a compromise- where both parties get their second choice- is, ironically, FPTP, which the Liberals prefer to PR, and the NDP prefer to IRV. The Liberals could only have 'compromised' in the sense that they could have just given the NDP what they wanted in exchange for nothing.

    I guess we have a pretty good chance of finding out if Singh learned anything from Layton, though.

    shrykeGnome-Interruptus
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    That doesn't make any sense at all, not a single NDP supporter or politician I have spoken to has preferred FPTP to IRV.

    I tried to run a keyword search for anything that says the NDP prefers FPTP to IRV and instead it came back with "Anything is better than FPTP" articles.

    And on the other hand, lets see what comes back for articles on why the Liberals are so dead set against proportional representation... I'm coming up empty there too.

    Crap, do you have any links to articles that help illuminate where you found the reasoning behind those positions?

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    STV is proportional and thus not what the Liberals want. This seems fairly obvious and is likely why they had no interest in it.

    But it is a compromise, correct?

    No. Not if you are against proportional systems it's not.

    You're saying the Liberals are unable to compromise? That doesn't bode well for a minority government or coalition situation :(

    No, I'm saying what I actually said: the option you suggested is not actually a compromise position.

    It's like two people ordering dinner and one says they want beef and the other says they are vegetarian and you are suggesting that fish is a compromise position here.

    If you don't want proportional representation, a different proportional system is not a compromise.

    Gnome-InterruptusShadowhope
  • FrostwoodFrostwood Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    That's a massive drop on 338 over the past two days. The debate can't possibly have had that much impact. What's happening here?

    I chose to vote for Trudeau bases on last election. If your opinion doesn’t change based on the debates or the events of the election, then the debates aren’t for you.

    The resurgence of the bloc came from parties publicly shitting on Quebec. Luckily the NDP said in the debate they wouldn’t interfere.

    The Bloc was the clear winner of the debate, with the NDP coming in second and it reflects in the polls.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    That doesn't make any sense at all, not a single NDP supporter or politician I have spoken to has preferred FPTP to IRV.

    I tried to run a keyword search for anything that says the NDP prefers FPTP to IRV and instead it came back with "Anything is better than FPTP" articles.

    And on the other hand, lets see what comes back for articles on why the Liberals are so dead set against proportional representation... I'm coming up empty there too.

    Crap, do you have any links to articles that help illuminate where you found the reasoning behind those positions?

    Well, here's one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533

    My reasoning is roughly:
    1) The Liberals didn't need NDP support to pass a reform bill. They had a majority government and could do whatever they wanted. What they needed the NDP (or some other opposition party) for was legitimacy.
    2) The Liberals went into the committee wanting IRV. The NDP went in wanting PR. Theoretically - and as stated in the linked article - either side could have been persuaded by the other.
    3) This didn't happen. Even in the extreme case where the Liberals truly were worried about short-notice changes they could have, say, passed a bill for PR starting in 2020.
    4) Faced with a Liberal party that doesn't support their position, the NDP had two choices:
    a) Endorse IRV as a compromise position and promise to revisit the issue in the future. Expected result: IRV implemented
    b) Continue to support PR and force the Liberals to either surrender or spike the reform process. Expected result: FPTP remains
    5) They chose option b), suggesting a preference for FPTP over IRV


    As for why the NDP supports FPTP over IRV... presumably some combination of "takes the wind out of the sails for further reform" and "the Liberals just want to be in charge forever".

    On an unrelated note, I'm seeing enough signs for Steven "Conservative about everything except assisted suicide because that affects me personally" Fletcher that there's definitely going to be some vote-splitting problems for the CPC guy. Whether it's enough remains to be seen... I know 338 is still pretty bearish on the Liberal's chances here.

    shrykeApogee
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense at all, not a single NDP supporter or politician I have spoken to has preferred FPTP to IRV.

    I tried to run a keyword search for anything that says the NDP prefers FPTP to IRV and instead it came back with "Anything is better than FPTP" articles.

    And on the other hand, lets see what comes back for articles on why the Liberals are so dead set against proportional representation... I'm coming up empty there too.

    Crap, do you have any links to articles that help illuminate where you found the reasoning behind those positions?

    Well, here's one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533

    My reasoning is roughly:
    1) The Liberals didn't need NDP support to pass a reform bill. They had a majority government and could do whatever they wanted. What they needed the NDP (or some other opposition party) for was legitimacy.
    2) The Liberals went into the committee wanting IRV. The NDP went in wanting PR. Theoretically - and as stated in the linked article - either side could have been persuaded by the other.
    3) This didn't happen. Even in the extreme case where the Liberals truly were worried about short-notice changes they could have, say, passed a bill for PR starting in 2020.
    4) Faced with a Liberal party that doesn't support their position, the NDP had two choices:
    a) Endorse IRV as a compromise position and promise to revisit the issue in the future. Expected result: IRV implemented
    b) Continue to support PR and force the Liberals to either surrender or spike the reform process. Expected result: FPTP remains
    5) They chose option b), suggesting a preference for FPTP over IRV


    As for why the NDP supports FPTP over IRV... presumably some combination of "takes the wind out of the sails for further reform" and "the Liberals just want to be in charge forever".

    On an unrelated note, I'm seeing enough signs for Steven "Conservative about everything except assisted suicide because that affects me personally" Fletcher that there's definitely going to be some vote-splitting problems for the CPC guy. Whether it's enough remains to be seen... I know 338 is still pretty bearish on the Liberal's chances here.

    Yeah, I think there's no way to look at the Electoral Reform process that went down and not see it as anything but all 3 major parties trying to push a system that advantages them over the others and refusing to back the systems the other parties wanted because it would disadvantage them.

    From a personal perspective I have worries about how proportional representation ends up playing out for our government, given how the vote is split.

    Gnome-InterruptusShadowhope
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    lol

    Scheer can't explain why Facebook ads claiming the Liberals will legalize hard drugs are only in Chinese
    Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is defending his party’s decision to run Facebook advertisements claiming the Liberals plan to decriminalize hard drugs.

    But speaking at an event in Burnaby Saturday, he would not say why those ads have only been published in Chinese languages.

    “This is something that is very important to Canadians to know about,” he said. “We are telling them that these are the types of things Liberals speculate about before the election, and then implement after the election.”

    a. It's not just Trump using Facebook's "we let politicians lie in their ads" rules, great (the story indicates the first version of the ad was taken down but I have to think that's because it used an image of someone using a razor to make cocaine into lines)
    b. What is it with conservatives lying about anyone left of their position to make them look cooler?
    c. As for why only in Chinese, I'm guessing we're seeing the Tory playbook for what they're going to do when cishet white people aren't a big enough demographic to let them eke out wins in the popular vote that give them a majority in the parliament: piss off older immigrants. Which, the hypocrisy.

  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    Looks like we are now in coin flip territory. 60/40 on 338 and 51/49 on CBC. NDP surge and BQ surge have eaten into Liberal seats.

    CPC released their platform on Friday, and it was full of cuts. We’ll see if that does anything, but it seems like we are heading for a minority government.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense at all, not a single NDP supporter or politician I have spoken to has preferred FPTP to IRV.

    I tried to run a keyword search for anything that says the NDP prefers FPTP to IRV and instead it came back with "Anything is better than FPTP" articles.

    And on the other hand, lets see what comes back for articles on why the Liberals are so dead set against proportional representation... I'm coming up empty there too.

    Crap, do you have any links to articles that help illuminate where you found the reasoning behind those positions?

    Well, here's one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reform-promise-referendum-1.3963533

    My reasoning is roughly:
    1) The Liberals didn't need NDP support to pass a reform bill. They had a majority government and could do whatever they wanted. What they needed the NDP (or some other opposition party) for was legitimacy.
    2) The Liberals went into the committee wanting IRV. The NDP went in wanting PR. Theoretically - and as stated in the linked article - either side could have been persuaded by the other.
    3) This didn't happen. Even in the extreme case where the Liberals truly were worried about short-notice changes they could have, say, passed a bill for PR starting in 2020.
    4) Faced with a Liberal party that doesn't support their position, the NDP had two choices:
    a) Endorse IRV as a compromise position and promise to revisit the issue in the future. Expected result: IRV implemented
    b) Continue to support PR and force the Liberals to either surrender or spike the reform process. Expected result: FPTP remains
    5) They chose option b), suggesting a preference for FPTP over IRV


    As for why the NDP supports FPTP over IRV... presumably some combination of "takes the wind out of the sails for further reform" and "the Liberals just want to be in charge forever".

    On an unrelated note, I'm seeing enough signs for Steven "Conservative about everything except assisted suicide because that affects me personally" Fletcher that there's definitely going to be some vote-splitting problems for the CPC guy. Whether it's enough remains to be seen... I know 338 is still pretty bearish on the Liberal's chances here.

    See, that reasoning is sound on the surface as per the article if you only accept the Liberal's not directly quoted arguments but when we read the ERRE's report, which the Liberals had the chair and multiple seats in that committee (you can see all their pictures, names and party affiliations on the government site), its finally recommendations had their input:

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/ERRE

    They finalized the recommendations that that they then as the government rejected. You really think the minister in charge wasn't reporting back and forth to their own Liberal members on the ERRE? At best that just suggests there is a split in the Liberal party membership on the issue but its not like they didn't have advance influence on it either, quite out numbering the NDP on this: BQ 1, Green 1, NDP 2, Conservative 3, Liberals 5.

    The Conservatives were pretty much against the whole thing other than calling for a referendum, so that ends up at best 3-4 vs 5 unless the Cons feel like trolling, which of course isn't out the question, it just seems unlikely that they would ever support a recommendation that is PR Gallagher Index 5 or less (which is 5 specific types of MMP, Rural-Urban, and STV)...

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Reports/RP8655791/errerp03/06-RPT-Chap4-e_files/image002.gif

    ...unless the Conservatives were just hoping it would die in the proposed Referendum again.

    Reports recommendations must have had Liberal support for it to even leave the committee, that whole thing was their show, the deck stacked in their favour.

    No wonder Nathan Cullen (who was the NDP co-chair for all these meetings the ERRE took to get to the final report) called Trudeau a liar that day when the new minister Gould announced the whole process dead.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-mandate-1.3961736

    The NDP didn't have the power in those proceedings to continue to support PR at the expense of all else with only the two seats. Somehow a totally opposed to PR cabinet (which would have included the Minister overseeing it too) didn't get the 5 Liberals there in the ERRE on the same page from June 21, 2016 to about Feb 1, 2017 when the final report was released with the support of the majority of the committee that somehow doesn't constitute consensus on the matter? Why weren't the Liberals more intractable over the pitfalls of a poorly implemented PR system during the committee itself, surely that would have come up as they did their studies and activities meetings that their sections on the possible alternatives came from?

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-183#52

    Huh, it did come up:
    As well, Brian Tanguay did not share the view that introducing proportionality would lead to the fragmentation of national political parties, or favour the proliferation of extremist political parties:

    I'm not as convinced as Professor Carty that it would be the death knell for national political parties. I don't see Canada being as riven by what political scientists call cleavages, as, say, Belgium is. The model proposed by the law reform commission would have a built-in kind of threshold. You'd need, probably, at least 10% of votes in a region to get one of those list seats.

    To me, the worry that there would be a proliferation of fringe or extremist parties and that the national parties would fall apart seems exaggerated. I just don't see—and I share, actually, your views so eloquently stated in the preamble to the question—that we grew up or lived through the near death of the country, all under first past the post. I don't think that a mixed member proportional system would exacerbate regionalism. I don't think it would be any worse than it is now.[273]

    Wasn't that the Liberals chance later on when finalizing the recommendations of the report to put the kibosh on it then maybe? The wording specifically seems to put the onus on the responses from Canadians submissions and testimony overwhelmingly preferring Proportional Representation, that's who really pushed for it, it was us, not the 2 NDP on the committee (from the government response):
    The Special Committee was established in June 2016, and over the following months consulted with Canadians in every province and territory. This included 57 meetings with 196 witnesses and 567 open‑mic participants. The Committee also received 574 written submissions and 172 reports from Members of Parliament who held consultations with their constituents. At the same time, the Committee also conducted an online consultation which was completed by 22,247 Canadians.

    Complementary engagement activities took place to listen to the values and priorities of Canadians. In Summer and Fall 2016, the then Minister of Democratic Institutions undertook a cross-Canada tour for the purpose of consultation. Town hall events took place in 18 towns and cities in every province and territory. The Government of Canada also launched MyDemocracy.ca to engage Canadians in the conversation. Over 360,000 people in Canada participated online or by phone and had their say about our democracy. Input from Canadians gathered through the collective engagement efforts of the Special Committee, Government, and Members of Parliament have informed our next steps.

    Why didn't the Liberals want to align themselves with the electorate's overwhelming support, would have thought that would be a potential goldmine of Liberal supporters right there if they had gone ahead.

    Yeah, the more I dig into the report, the less sense the Government response makes, it completely ignores Recommendation 12 which is the focus of this discussion, instead saying no consensus was reached when it was reached by themselves: Pick a PR system. Hold a referendum.

    Its interesting that all these years later, that's exactly what the NDP did, picked a system on the Gallagher that was less 5 on its index, MMP (Small Regions), and they are going to hold a referendum after we try it as the best way of educating Canadians on it. Almost like they are capable of listening to the recommendations of Liberals.

    steam_sig.png
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Reports recommendations must have had Liberal support for it to even leave the committee, that whole thing was their show, the deck stacked in their favour.

    The committee voted and the Liberals lost because they didn't have a majority. You'll note the Conservatives didn't - either in 2015 or 2019 - put electoral reform in their platform, so I'm going to go with "trolling" there. The committee report passes 7-5 and the Liberals release a supplementary report by themselves.

    I mean, I suppose it's possible that the NDP really didn't think about what would happen if they recommended something the Liberals were entirely opposed to... but it seems more likely they considered IRV a step in the wrong direction (it's spelled out in your handy chart, even).

    shryke
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Reports recommendations must have had Liberal support for it to even leave the committee, that whole thing was their show, the deck stacked in their favour.

    The committee voted and the Liberals lost because they didn't have a majority. You'll note the Conservatives didn't - either in 2015 or 2019 - put electoral reform in their platform, so I'm going to go with "trolling" there. The committee report passes 7-5 and the Liberals release a supplementary report by themselves.

    I mean, I suppose it's possible that the NDP really didn't think about what would happen if they recommended something the Liberals were entirely opposed to... but it seems more likely they considered IRV a step in the wrong direction (it's spelled out in your handy chart, even).

    Not my chart, its from the report. I thought I should link it because I am guessing most people don't know what "5 or less on the Gallagher Index" is without seeing the chart and digging a bit deeper from there on their own if so inclined as to what the specific forms of MMP, Rural-Urban, and STV are that have that score of 5 or less.

    steam_sig.png
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Finally managed to get re-registered after a recent move.
    Conclusions:
    1. The people in charge of Election Canada's web tools and underlying systems need to be fired;
    2. Dealing with the mess in person was significantly easier, but required half a hour walk to get there (same time by bus, so...);
    3. We should stop pretending that everyone has a driver's license and the utility bills cannot be faked trivially;
    4. Seriously, fired. into the sun. It use a programmer UI, with error messages that are completely uninformative in both official languages, and does not cope with new constructions, assuming I decrypted the messages correctly;
    5. Also, anything that make in hard to register and vote in other, more southern, areas is clearly intentional because the office is open everyday including during the weekend, there was no waiting, and it took less than 10 minutes.

    Also voted while I was there. I did not even need to ask for the ballot, they just handed it to me.

    Brolo
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Reports recommendations must have had Liberal support for it to even leave the committee, that whole thing was their show, the deck stacked in their favour.

    The committee voted and the Liberals lost because they didn't have a majority. You'll note the Conservatives didn't - either in 2015 or 2019 - put electoral reform in their platform, so I'm going to go with "trolling" there. The committee report passes 7-5 and the Liberals release a supplementary report by themselves.

    I mean, I suppose it's possible that the NDP really didn't think about what would happen if they recommended something the Liberals were entirely opposed to... but it seems more likely they considered IRV a step in the wrong direction (it's spelled out in your handy chart, even).

    Not my chart, its from the report. I thought I should link it because I am guessing most people don't know what "5 or less on the Gallagher Index" is without seeing the chart and digging a bit deeper from there on their own if so inclined as to what the specific forms of MMP, Rural-Urban, and STV are that have that score of 5 or less.

    Yes... and the point is that looking at the chart, IRV is worse on the Gallagher index than FPTP and produces a massive overrepresentation for the Liberals. So if they are going based on that, the NDP would rather keep the current system, which again presents itself as everybody's second (or first) choice.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Well, Trudeau's disastrous performance in the debates, contrasted against Singh's and Blanchet's surprisingly good performances, has pretty much killed any chance of a Liberal majority. With 8 days to go, it remains to be seen it the Liberal vote will collapse to the point of letting a CPC minority or (heaven forbid) majority in, or if they'll hold on to a minority government at least.

    God I hope a minority. I cannot stand Scheer, and seeing his face for four years should be considered a crime against humanity.

    sig.gif
    CanadianWolverineShadowhopeJohn C. TurbineEl Mucho
  • FrostwoodFrostwood Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Well, Trudeau's disastrous performance in the debates, contrasted against Singh's and Blanchet's surprisingly good performances, has pretty much killed any chance of a Liberal majority. With 8 days to go, it remains to be seen it the Liberal vote will collapse to the point of letting a CPC minority or (heaven forbid) majority in, or if they'll hold on to a minority government at least.

    God I hope a minority. I cannot stand Scheer, and seeing his face for four years should be considered a crime against humanity.

    Your prediction that Bill 21 would down the Liberals came true.

    I didn’t expect the Bloc to down the other candiates on this, i don’t think the other leader thought so as well.

This discussion has been closed.