Canadian political thread
- Thread starter MB Mod
- Start date
- Status
I am suspicious of anyone who doesn’t have a few skeletons in their closet.
A person who has never fucked up at least once is either a liar or has never done anything.
A person who has never fucked up at least once is either a liar or has never done anything.
People say that sales pitch for fixed election dates, but in reality 1) it doesn't match well with having a parliamentary system, and 2) the politicking and partisanship get even worse. It's a US idea, look at them - basically led to "permanent campaigning". (And campaigns are the season of bullshit, everyone knows this - or should.)
If the parties do not know for sure when an election is coming, they lay off the campaigning and get shit done. But if you tell them "4 years", they waste at least 3 of those years fundraising to campaign, then having some asinine unofficial campaign, only doing the official campaign right at the end.
Harper put in a "4 years fixed date" law, and he was the first PM to openly violate it by calling an election when he wanted anyway. Until he got his parliamentary majority - then he hung on to power like he'd been bolted to the door of the PMO. He also ran the longest campaigns ever seen, mostly because the Conservatives always have more money than the other parties combined, so he wanted to maximize that advantage. (Didn't work though - Canadians hated it.)
Prior to that we had only a 5 year maximum limit between elections. That made more sense. Why create something "fixed" with so many exceptions that any PM can basically call an election any time he wants anyway? (Which is what they do.)
I'd rather live with the reality that in a parliamentary system, PM's can call elections when they feel the need, or be forced into them when they start losing parliamentary votes, then live with some lie that "4 years like clockwork" is actually going to be adhered to or that it will help make politics better.
Why do people promote 4 years, and not 5? Or 3? or 7? Face it, this "4 years" thing is an attempt to force American-style ideas into a system that is not at all like theirs. Canada's not a presidential republic; we don't have the same legislative structure, nor a leader that sits above them both like some kind of elected emperor. Plus the more our politics gets like their politics, the more corrupt and un-democratic it is, the more the media focuses on optics and unreal issues, the more divisive and dirty the campaigns are, the more the "leaders" disappoint us and misrepresent themselves, and the more the public wishes to either give up voting or rip the whole thing down.
On the contrary, the popular vote is the main thing. We vote to elect MP's to represent the people, and all put together, the parliament should reflect what the people actually believe in. That's the whole point of the House Of Commons - represent the national will. ("Commons", a.k.a. representing the common people and reflecting their beliefs.)
Yes, we divide it up into 338 ridings, but are you telling me it works any better at 338 than it would at 250 or 500? Nope. The balance of power is what matters, the proportions, not the absolute numbers.
If representing a geographic area is so all-important, then why isn't it the rule that you have to win a majority (50%+ ) of support locally ? Why don't we have a seconds round of runoff ballots between the top two candidates ? Ranked ballots of some sort in a way fold this runoff process into one round of voting, by asking people their 2nd choice, 3rd, and so on - but the goal is the same: at the end the winner should at least be able to say they have the support of a local majority. Using these methods, you could say that a majority of people in Riding X actually support their MP; even lukewarm support would be better than a majority being opposed, yet the person still wins.
First-Past-The-Post cannot even achieve this goal. In most ridings, it fails to produce a winner the majority can support. So it sucks at the national level, where the Parliament doesn't actually resemble what the people chose as a nation, nor does it work as a way of putting local support first.
The main thing for an MP, and and entire government is legitimacy. How can they say they have any, when a majority of voters are saying "that's not who I wanted"?
FPTP is bullshit. It's for parties & politicians who prefer gaming the system instead of actually putting their ideas to the test of public judgement. It does not create a parliament that represents us.
We should demand better than something that piles failure on top of failure with each new election call. FPTP is defective, producing nothing like what its talking points promise: not stability, not proper representation of ideas or localities, not quality leaders, basically nothing but "horse race" elections and distorted results.
I also would prefer ranked ballots as it would let people have a feeling that if their first choice is not selected then at least they have had some voice in the selection.
Obviously rlock, you did not understand what I was saying. Despite having 338 riding, there is not an equal amount of voters in each riding. If there was then most votes would win the most seats....
People move all the time and population adjusts in places over time. So the people in charge of the voting districts (ridings) usually keep the same boundaries for the ridings. Otherwise it they moved boundaries to get equal amount of voters in every riding, it would be confusing election after election. So the boundaries stay static (that means they don't move), unless there is a substantial increase in population etc etc....
So back to the popular vote. As past elections have seen, the winning party might have a less popular vote, but more ridings based on the unequal amount of voters in each ridings.
If you know that there are not an equal amount of voters in each ridings, you know that the popular vote will not reflect on which party has won the most ridings. It fucken simple math......
Therefore the popular vote means nothing in an election, its the number of seats (ridings) that really count.
Therefore popular vote is a gimic for the press or to any sore loser that whines about it.
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true, that equal ridings would mean most votes = most seats.
If you had 100 ridings and 1,000 votes per riding, that’s 100,000 voters total. A party could win 51% of the seats in a two party race and still only have 26,000ish votes.
If you think that Trudeau’s economic policies have done anything to improve wealth inequality you are sorely mistaken. All his COVID/VOTE BUYING spending spree did was inflate asset values for those who are already wealthy, and create more national debt for those who aren’t. You can’t tax yourselves out of this Millenials/GenX/GenZ. Us Boomers have protected our money from predatory taxation. Good luck with the rest of your lives. Just remember, if you support Justin Trudeau you are part of the problem and not part of the answer. It is simple economics
I think I understand the subject better than you. Let's leave it at that.
So Politics, in Canada. Basically a political system with people in it who want the job, not the best by any means. Being political maybe has different meanings to different folks but to me it means staying above the fault line and if you dip below that, either come clean and acknowledge the fuck up or skirt the issue, tip toe, dance whatever until it goes away. But try to do it without being blatant about it.
And here we have JT, our ordained leader, holidaying with the fam on the first ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I don't begrudge folks taking time off, but back to that political thing, you would think his political party would at least try to pull his head from his ass so he could get a bit of oxygen and not do stupid fucking things. But in my lifetime, I have seen every political party fuck up, more than once, and seemingly continually.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to Junior, there have been rumours about his marriage not doing well, so maybe Sophie took charge and said No, if you want any, we are going to take a holiday. .... Naw ... its the head up his ass thing.
And here we have JT, our ordained leader, holidaying with the fam on the first ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I don't begrudge folks taking time off, but back to that political thing, you would think his political party would at least try to pull his head from his ass so he could get a bit of oxygen and not do stupid fucking things. But in my lifetime, I have seen every political party fuck up, more than once, and seemingly continually.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to Junior, there have been rumours about his marriage not doing well, so maybe Sophie took charge and said No, if you want any, we are going to take a holiday. .... Naw ... its the head up his ass thing.
And all the Covid/Vote Buying is going to drive inflation to new heights. A lot of the money doled out is not being spent. That is a fact! With the uncertainty in many sectors, many individuals are saving it for what is to come. In 2021 the Velocity of Money is at a very low point (1.12) compared to the previous 4 non-Covid years (2016-2019) when it hovered around 1.44. Even in 2020 while it was down to 1.10 in Q2 it rebounded to 1.34. When all that money enters the economy it is going to ramp up consumer spending an inflation will skyrocket.
Cheers
J
Imagine the guy spending a statutory holiday with wife and kids in a secluded area after an election that saw constant attacks on his family from the "right" including characterization of his wife as a whore . . .
. . . rather than engaging in the more traditional holiday act of shitposting on a pooner message board.
He would have caught shit from the right no matter how he spent the day, because they're depressed and feeling hopeless after getting their fat asses whupped by him for the third straight time.
Reconciliation Day was supposed to be about the survivors, not him. He attended the ceremony the night before. He invented the day. He deserves some time off.
Wow, now there's an over reaction to a post, if I ever saw one!!
But hey, that's great - all opinions are welcome - it's a forum after all.
But hey, that's great - all opinions are welcome - it's a forum after all.
Its doubtful that you really care about that much at all beyond the opportunity to score points on JT. Which is fine, but dont expect me to get upset about him spending time with family, its not like Otool would have done anything different ( besides maybe cancelling the whole holiday)
The one who might have actually been sincere would have been Singh. But i think he would be a more abborrent choice for you given their fiscal policies.
No I don't think so.
Define the popular vote to mean the most votes of all the Canadian voters across Canada (the total of all the ridings for all the parties)
Of course, in each riding the party with the most votes wins that riding.
Its quite possible that in 170 ridings that only only 1 vote for party A in 170 ridings (out of 338 ridings in total) would be cast; and none for Party B in those same 170 ridings. Every other riding could vote 100% for Party B. The popular vote would be 99.99% Party B, and less than .01% for Party A (actually party A % would be far lower %). Party A wins the majority of seats in parliament; therefore the election. (This is not likely at all to happen, but statistically it can occur)
Therefore popular vote doesn't mean a fucking turds ass, if you fail to win the seat (riding) (didn't I say that in my last post).... Party B loses the election despite having the most voters (popular vote at 99.99%)across Canada.
So if you could lose an election with 99.99% of the popular vote; anybody that uses the popular vote to state things/agendas/etc is playing games. Trying to confuse you.
YOU HAVE to WIN the RIDING. That is how the system works. The popular vote doesn't win you seats, its just a stat that overall means very little, as to who wins the individual ridings/seats.
The popular vote is an asshat way of letting the losing party feel better about itself...when it lost the election....
Also 50% of the popular vote in an election, does not mean that 50% of all Canadian voters went for a certain Party. It only means that 50% of voter turnout voted for that certain party. So if only 30% of eligible voters voted (across all ridings for Canada and all parties); it means only 15% of total eligible voters voted to make that 50% popular vote.
KISS
"Popular vote" is an American term, so we might as well say the Conservatives won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college.
Conservatives did well in Alberta and Saskatchewan where they received 55% and 60% of the vote, but they did so poorly in urban areas--Montreal 11%, Vancouver and Toronto 30%--that they won close to zero seats in the cities.
If the CPC campaigned to win the "popular vote" rather than the winning plurality of seats, they're even dumber than I thought.
Conservatives did well in Alberta and Saskatchewan where they received 55% and 60% of the vote, but they did so poorly in urban areas--Montreal 11%, Vancouver and Toronto 30%--that they won close to zero seats in the cities.
If the CPC campaigned to win the "popular vote" rather than the winning plurality of seats, they're even dumber than I thought.
From the Penticton Herald.......
- Status
