Canada Election: 2019

[Horatius]

A lucky happenstance doesn't make up for FPTP. Preferential voting would be the ideal way to allow people to vote their most preferred candidate without throwing their vote away.

I didn't say it did, I was addressing the "wasting my vote" and "giving it to the cons" argument. That only matters in swing ridings, which this one isn't.

Before they redrew the riding borders, I was in a swing riding, and voted accordingly. Now, it really doesn't matter. Half the population here would have to undergo a major change in political outlook in the next month to even have a shot at it not going Liberal.

Ottawa/Vanier. Every MP they have had since the riding was created was a Liberal. Even in the closest Federal election, the Liberal Candidate beat their closest opponent by ~9% of the vote (although victories by >20% were common in the past).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa—Vanier

Hey, we're neighbours! Have you tried the O Train yet? I'm loving it!

Just wish they'd built it 30+ years ago like I told them to!

 

[Segnosaur]

The main problem I can see with Preferential voting is that it might give the Liberals an unfair advantage. (This is a byproduct of having 3 'main' political parties. The Liberals, as the ones closest to the political center, would be the natural second choice for both NDPers who don't want to touch the 'fascist' conservatives, and for conservatives who don't want the 'socialist' NDP.)

What makes you think that the Libs don't already have that advantage? Strategic voters would know that the best way to keep the Cons out of a seat is to vote Liberal.

They may have an advantage now. A preferential voting system would make the problem worse, since not only does it impact 'strategic' voting, but it also affects people who tend to vote based strictly on policy.

I don't know the seat by seat break down of Canadian elections but there is likely to be seats where the NDP and Cons are in the top two. Under FTPT that is more likely to be a slam dunk for the conservatives but if preferential voting is in place then the Lib preferences could hand the seat to the NDP.

Yes, I'm sure there will be some cases where a Liberal's second-place votes will give seats to the NDP.

But I'm talking averages. In most ridings, the Liberals are at least competitive with the 2 other parties.

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-preferential-ballot-1.3332566
An analysis of the results of the federal election, combined with regional-level second-choice polling conducted at the end of the campaign, suggests that had a preferential ballot been the method used to elect MPs on Oct. 19 (of the 2015 election), all else being equal, the Liberals would have won an even larger majority.

Now, I'm sure many people here would be quite happy to see the Conservatives in a position where they could never ever get elected. Not sure if having one party receive such a monopoly on power is actually good for the country however.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ottawa/Vanier. Every MP they have had since the riding was created was a Liberal.

Hey, we're neighbours!

Well, there goes the neighborhood!

Just kidding.

Have you tried the O Train yet? I'm loving it!

Not yet. Commuting by train for work isn't really feasible for me (I live near the blair transit station, but I'm often in other parts of town in the evening), so if I took the train it would just be for the sake of taking the Train.

Just wish they'd built it 30+ years ago like I told them to!

I could have sworn they started it 30 years ago. (With all the delays, it certainly seems like it.)

I assume you heard about the various scandals around the proposed Phase 2 expansion.... The bid was won by SNC Lavalin, who actually failed the technical requirements of the bid. But they weren't eliminated, on the advise of a legal firm the city hired, which by the way, also does work for SNC Lavalin.

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local...lrt-has-relationship-with-snc-lavalin-1630491

 

[Horatius]

Not yet. Commuting by train for work isn't really feasible for me (I live near the blair transit station, but I'm often in other parts of town in the evening), so if I took the train it would just be for the sake of taking the Train.

It's worth it just for that! That's what I did most of Saturday afternoon. Marvel at an Ottawa transit vehicle that arrives at its scheduled time! Be amazed as it doesn't get stuck in traffic!

But seriously, if you get the urge to go to the Market for dinner or something, give it a shot. Blair to Rideau in 15 minutes.

I assume you heard about the various scandals around the proposed Phase 2 expansion.... The bid was won by SNC Lavalin, who actually failed the technical requirements of the bid. But they weren't eliminated, on the advise of a legal firm the city hired, which by the way, also does work for SNC Lavalin.

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local...lrt-has-relationship-with-snc-lavalin-1630491

Well, that's government for you. The "lowest bidder" policy just needs to die. We should make a policy that we'll take the bid that's the closest to the average of all the bids.

That, or just do what everyone in Asia does, and hire the Japanese to build the whole thing. Even if it cost twice as much, they'd actually do a decent job of it.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's worth it just for that! That's what I did most of Saturday afternoon. Marvel at an Ottawa transit vehicle that arrives at its scheduled time! Be amazed as it doesn't get stuck in traffic!

No, it just gets stuck in a tunnel after they have radio problems.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-shut-down-hours-1.5270632

Overall, I do think that the train will be beneficial for the city. But, it is a bit embarrassing to have those sorts of problems.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yes it does.

The Liberals had promised to reform the voting system during the last election, but they couldn't decide how (and the most popular option would not have benefited the Liberals, so they scrapped it.)

Actually a lot of ridings are solidly for one party or another. I live in probably the safest Liberal riding in the country, so how I vote doesn't really matter.

However, there can be unexpected surprises... in the 2011 election, the NDP managed to land dozens of seats in Quebec (known as the 'orange crush', based on the color associated with the party), despite the fact that they never really had a presence in the province before.

And minority governments do happen, where the secondary parties do get more influence than they might normally get.

You live near me?

Seriously, this ridings voted Liberal since it was established - I swear they could run a rock, and as long as it was painted red it would win.

I'm likely voting liberal this time - my big goal is keeping the Cons (and PPC) out, and in this riding, the Liberals are the best means to do so, especially since the NDP don't look poised to do anything other than perhaps be a coalition partner in a minority government.

 

[Segnosaur]

Looks like the upcoming leadership debates might become a bit more.... problematic, partly because they'll be adding one more candidate to the mix (which makes it harder for any single person to get their message out), and partly because of who the new entry is:

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-peoples-party-federal-election-debate-2019-1.5285871
The stage is set for Maxime Bernier. His challenge now is to perform. The leader of the nascent People's Party of Canada (PPC) yesterday got his coveted invitation to take part in the two televised debates

Its always a problem... being fair enough to make sure parties with a reasonable shot get exposure, but without having so many people on stage that its hard for any sort of real give-and-take to occur. I remember a few years ago when the Green Party was not allowed in the debates, and many people thought it was unfair. Well, this is what happens when you open up the field too much.

Overall, I think that hurts the conservatives most:

- The exposure may cause some voters to switch from the conservatives to the PPC. (Not that I think all conservatives are nut-cases, but I can't deny that there are at least a few questionable people who support the party.)

- Adding more people to the debate means less time for the other candidates, so less time for Trudeau to be in the spotlight

 

[psionl0]

They may have an advantage now. A preferential voting system would make the problem worse, since not only does it impact 'strategic' voting, but it also affects people who tend to vote based strictly on policy.

Yes, I'm sure there will be some cases where a Liberal's second-place votes will give seats to the NDP.

But I'm talking averages. In most ridings, the Liberals are at least competitive with the 2 other parties.

From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-preferential-ballot-1.3332566
An analysis of the results of the federal election, combined with regional-level second-choice polling conducted at the end of the campaign, suggests that had a preferential ballot been the method used to elect MPs on Oct. 19 (of the 2015 election), all else being equal, the Liberals would have won an even larger majority.

Now, I'm sure many people here would be quite happy to see the Conservatives in a position where they could never ever get elected. Not sure if having one party receive such a monopoly on power is actually good for the country however.

You are basically arguing for the retention of FPTP on the grounds that with FPTP, the Conservatives are more likely to win government against the will of the people.

 

[Segnosaur]

They may have an advantage now. A preferential voting system would make the problem worse, since not only does it impact 'strategic' voting, but it also affects people who tend to vote based strictly on policy.

You are basically arguing for the retention of FPTP on the grounds that with FPTP, the Conservatives are more likely to win government...

Actually, FPTP can also benefit other parties (including the NDP and/or Green party) depending on the way the votes get split. (The fact that it harms the conservatives more NOW doesn't mean that other parties won't likewise be affected.)

...against the will of the people.

There are no easy answers to that.

Why are you insisting that one person's "I really don't want party X" (and will rank the other parties 1&2) should take priority over another person's "I really want party X" (but of course they have no way to give the 'extra' support to party X').

And if you want to talk "will of the people", why not go with a proportional (or mixed proportional) system? Sounds even more 'will of the people' to me than a preferential system.

I rather suspect that people's eagerness to embrace 'alternative' voting systems (like Ranked/preferential ballots, proportional/mixed, etc.) has more to do with how it benefits their own particular ideology at the time than anything else. Liberals want preferential because it gives them (the party in the middle) more power. NDP/Greens want proportional because it gives more power to smaller parties.

I prefer the current system because it is simple, and it gets the job done: governments get formed, usually things work out pretty decently for the electorate, and when a government gets too scandal-prone they get removed. Even if I didn't vote for Trudeau last time and don't like many of his policies, I am not in any danger of being rounded up and stuck in a socialist reeducation camp.

 

[psionl0]

Why are you insisting that one person's "I really don't want party X" (and will rank the other parties 1&2) should take priority over another person's "I really want party X" (but of course they have no way to give the 'extra' support to party X').

Preferential voting doesn't work like that. Your vote will ultimately end up with one of the top two candidates (if it gets down to distributing preferences). Nobody has a greater say in who gets elected. It just avoids the need for strategic voting.

And if you want to talk "will of the people", why not go with a proportional (or mixed proportional) system? Sounds even more 'will of the people' to me than a preferential system.

That is actually my preferred choice though I can be persuaded that a permanently hung parliament is not in the best interests of Canada. However, it doesn't seem to have done New Zealand any harm so maybe MMP is the way to go after all.

I prefer the current system because it is simple, and it gets the job done: governments get formed, usually things work out pretty decently for the electorate, and when a government gets too scandal-prone they get removed.

You have already given the reason why you prefer FPTP. You want to game the system in case the public votes the wrong way.

Your theory that preferential voting would permanently entrench a Liberal government is just that - a theory. Any party that does a lousy job is in danger of losing their majority at the next election. Even if the Cons don't get a majority in their own right, one of the two would likely have to do deals with minor parties (who would probably increase their representation in such a scenario) in order to form a government.

That's the way it works in countries that don't have FTPT and I'm sure that Canada would be no different. A party only gets to govern in its own right if they can convince the voters that they are up to the task.

Even if I didn't vote for Trudeau last time and don't like many of his policies, I am not in any danger of being rounded up and stuck in a socialist reeducation camp.

Is that what you think "power to the people" will result in?

 

[Segnosaur]

Why are you insisting that one person's "I really don't want party X" (and will rank the other parties 1&2) should take priority over another person's "I really want party X" (but of course they have no way to give the 'extra' support to party X').

Preferential voting doesn't work like that. Your vote will ultimately end up with one of the top two candidates (if it gets down to distributing preferences). Nobody has a greater say in who gets elected. It just avoids the need for strategic voting.

Actually it does work that way.

But thanks for playing.

Once again.... hypothetical situation: You REALLY HATE the Leopards eating people's faces party. You don't care who gets in as long as its them. So you pick either the Monster Raving Lunitic Party or the Rhinos. On the other hand, I really like the Leopards Eating People's faces party. I don't think any other party comes close. Both of us have preferences. Both of us are expressing our 'will'.

So, election day comes.... your 'vote' means support for 2 different parties opposing the Leopards. If your first pick doesn't get elected in the first round, your support for the second still provides a benefit that can be used in the second round. On the other hand, I have no such fallback, because my preference is FOR a particular party, not against an alternative.

You have already given the reason why you prefer FPTP. You want to game the system in case the public votes the wrong way.

Uhhh.... I never said the issue was the public "voting the wrong way".

One of your problems is the assumption that a preferential ballot is somehow more "people's will" than a strict FPTP system. It is not.

Your theory that preferential voting would permanently entrench a Liberal government is just that - a theory.

On the other hand, I have provided evidence. EVIDENCE.

Any party that does a lousy job is in danger of losing their majority at the next election.

Yes, a Liberal government might eventually lose power in a preferential ballot system. But it becomes less likely. And when they do get Majorities, their majorities will likely be much stronger. And their minorities may turn into majorities.

That's the way it works in countries that don't have FTPT and I'm sure that Canada would be no different.

And once again... Canada's system is different than other countries because of the way our politics have evolved, with one primary 'center' party and 2 parties on the left/right wing.

Other countries don't often have that particular split in their politics.

Even if I didn't vote for Trudeau last time and don't like many of his policies, I am not in any danger of being rounded up and stuck in a socialist reeducation camp.

Is that what you think "power to the people" will result in?

Uhhhh... no... Guess you didn't recognize the sarcasm/satire.

My point was, Canada is a stable, functioning democracy, and the vast majority of people are going to continue to be treated decently regardless of the party that happens to be in power. That goes for whether the Liberals, Conservatives, or even the NDP get a majority. We don't need to tinker with our election system.

 

[Horatius]

I think the problem that Segnosaur has with a Preferential ballot arises from the fact that, until the PPC appeared, we only had one party that was "right wing", and so the perception is that this party wouldn't be anyone's second or third choice. So they'd get the votes they get in the first round, and then no more.


But that's the problem with the all-or-nothing, take it or leave it philosophy behind the "Unite the Right" movement that created the current Conservative Party. Lots of people don't want to take it, so they leave it.

But if we had a Preferential ballot, you could form a more moderate right wing party, and see how many people actually prefer that option to what we have now. Revive the old PCs, and see if they really have any constituency left. If they do have some significant number of voters who'd put them as #1, and the Liberals as #2, then they could make the case that if the more extreme right wing parties give up their worst policies, they might be able to form a government, since that might get more of the PC voters to make the Cons their #2 choice instead of the Liberals.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think the problem that Segnosaur has with a Preferential ballot arises from the fact that, until the PPC appeared, we only had one party that was "right wing", and so the perception is that this party wouldn't be anyone's second or third choice. So they'd get the votes they get in the first round, and then no more.

Not exactly.

My problem is that we have only one 'centrist' party that becomes the natural second choice for both those on the left and right.

If instead of the NDP-Liberal-Conservative split, we had 4 or 5 main political parties (such as NDP-Liberal-Leopards Eating People's Faces-Conservative), with more than 1 party occupying the political middle ground, I'd feel more comfortable. People's second choices wouldn't automatically migrate to the Liberals: Both NDPers and conservatives could make their second choice either Leopards or Liberals.

 

[psionl0]

Once again.... hypothetical situation: You REALLY HATE the Leopards eating people's faces party. You don't care who gets in as long as its them. So you pick either the Monster Raving Lunitic Party or the Rhinos. On the other hand, I really like the Leopards Eating People's faces party. I don't think any other party comes close. Both of us have preferences. Both of us are expressing our 'will'.

You are describing a situation where under FPTP, the Leopards eating people's faces party is a shoo-in even though most of the voters are voting against them. Only supporters of the Leopards eating people's faces party would think that is a fair system.

FPTP really gets ugly when a major party splinters. The Thatcher government kept winning elections in the 1980s because the opposing votes were divided into Labour and the Social Democrats. England should have been governed by an alliance between these two parties but because of FPTP, both parties were consigned to oblivion and the Conservatives won by default.

A similar thing happened in Australia early last century. The emergence of the Country Party saw the conservative vote split down the middle and Labor winning seats with as little as 1/3 of the vote. Nobody thought that was a fair outcome and preferential voting was introduced to stop this from happening. Australia has never looked back since.

 

[dudalb]

Hey, no matters what happens in Canada, won't be near the mess that is going on in Israel.

 

[dudalb]

Just read about the last minute "Trudeau Black Face" story. Ouch.

 

[angrysoba]

Trudeau’s got his work cut out if he wants to survive this:

Justin Trudeau: Canada PM in 2001 brownface yearbook photo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49749851

 

[rockinkt]

Trudeau’s got his work cut out if he wants to survive this:

Justin Trudeau: Canada PM in 2001 brownface yearbook photo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49749851

The idea that the brain dead Liberals who have accepted his double standards regarding sexual misconduct (remember that reporter in Alberta he groped?) and his being the only Canadian Prime Minister in history to violate the ethics laws not once but twice will now stop following him because of some make-up he wore is absurd.

 

[Civet]

Trudeau’s got his work cut out if he wants to survive this:

Justin Trudeau: Canada PM in 2001 brownface yearbook photo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49749851

I really surprised that it took this long for this to come out. Age 29 was old enough to know better and 2001 wasn't so very different an era. Lot of unforced errors with this guy.

 

[angrysoba]

Now there is video of Trudeau in black face from a completely separate incident.

Does anyone think he might end up resigning over this?