Federal election result: it just doesn't make any sense!

[torcat]

So Liberals got only 39.5% of all votes, but somehow won 184 seats in the parliament. All other parties together won 154 seats. That's 30 seats difference.

That means Liberals have absolute majority and can easily pass ANY law in spite of the fact that 60.5% of voters do NOT want them to be the ruling party, not mentioning giving them unlimited power. If this is a democracy, what is not?


http://www.cbc.ca/includes/federalelection/dashboard/index.html

 

[Hype149]

It does make sense in our multi party democracy. When you have 3-4 parties running in the same riding, your vote will be split. Lets take Burnaby-Seymour for example:

36% - Liberal
29% - NDP
28% - Conservative
5% - Green

Yes, 62% of the voters didn't vote for the liberals, but the liberals received the most votes over any other party, so they win that riding, and the same story played out through the rest of the country.

People were scared this year that voting NDP/Green would have meant another 4 more years of Harper so people voted Liberal just to the Cons. out. You could also say here, had it not been for the Greens, the NDP would have held onto this riding.

I still say had Harper bowed out last year and let someone else rule, the Cons would probably have won yesterday. He alienated so many people that people who had not voted in years or ever came out and voted against him.

 

[CJ Tylers]

That's why we should have a mixed proportional & population system, so those 60% aren't wasted. In any case, everyone else has been scratching their collective heads for the last 10 years on how the Conservatives could do exactly the same thing.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I'm sure we'll hear more about electoral reform from them.

It is the correct thing to do, regardless of who is currently foisting its flag, politically.

 

[hornygandalf]

It does make sense in our multi party democracy. When you have 3-4 parties running in the same riding, your vote will be split. Lets take Burnaby-Seymour for example:

36% - Liberal
29% - NDP
28% - Conservative
5% - Green

..... You could also say here, had it not been for the Greens, the NDP would have held onto this riding.

Not correct in this instance. Terry Beech received 18,742 votes
Carol Baird Ellen and Lynne Quarmby together gained 17,920 votes. So even if all of the Green Party voters voted NDP, it would not have been enough for NDP.

Interesting result, though, as the polls I'd seen had Beech running in 3rd place and about 10% lower than what he got on the night. Either that polls were off (they were right that it would be close between NDP and Cons), or there were a lot of last minute changes of mind.

 

[bcneil]

So Liberals got only 39.5% of all votes, but somehow won 184 seats in the parliament. All other parties together won 154 seats. That's 30 seats difference.

That means Liberals have absolute majority and can easily pass ANY law in spite of the fact that 60.5% of voters do NOT want them to be the ruling party, not mentioning giving them unlimited power. If this is a democracy, what is not?


http://www.cbc.ca/includes/federalelection/dashboard/index.html

Cons had 9 years to change the system, but at the time it worked for them so they didn't.

 

[hornygandalf]

From the Liberal platform:
"Liberals are committed to exploring Parliamentary and Electoral reform in order to realign our institutions with democratic principles and to ensure more meaningful and effective representation"

Their commitment is to explore it. It will be interesting how far they really go with it as it would also mean a loss of majority power if they implemented proportional representation. A minority government would have been better for this.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Minority governments, provided they have an interest in actually working for the country rather than for themselves, tend to work the best for the people as a whole. The trouble is, people with big egos rarely play well with one another.

 

[torcat]

It does make sense in our multi party democracy. When you have 3-4 parties running in the same riding, your vote will be split. Lets take Burnaby-Seymour for example:

36% - Liberal
29% - NDP
28% - Conservative
5% - Green

Yes, 62% of the voters didn't vote for the liberals, but the liberals received the most votes over any other party, so they win that riding, and the same story played out through the rest of the country.

People were scared this year that voting NDP/Green would have meant another 4 more years of Harper so people voted Liberal just to the Cons. out. You could also say here, had it not been for the Greens, the NDP would have held onto this riding.

I still say had Harper bowed out last year and let someone else rule, the Cons would probably have won yesterday. He alienated so many people that people who had not voted in years or ever came out and voted against him.

I'm aware how the system works, but my point is that it is NOT a democracy. In your example (Burnaby-Seymour) Liberal candidate represents only 36% of the voters - so he has no mandate to make any decisions on behalf of 64%, and hence 64% is a clear majority, he has no mandate at all.

This contradiction can be easily resolved by the second round of election when only two front-runners compete, and one of them will surely get 50+% of votes.

 

[ogreray]

From the Liberal platform:
"Liberals are committed to exploring Parliamentary and Electoral reform in order to realign our institutions with democratic principles and to ensure more meaningful and effective representation"

Their commitment is to explore it. It will be interesting how far they really go with it as it would also mean a loss of majority power if they implemented proportional representation. A minority government would have been better for this.

This also happens to be on their website:

"We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform."

See link https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1

Sounds like they are more commited to the process by the wording of that statement. We shall see in due course.

 

[sdw]

This also happens to be on their website:

"We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform."

See link https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1

Sounds like they are more commited to the process by the wording of that statement. We shall see in due course.

Justin Trudeau would actually like to see a Preferential Ballot instead of Proportional Representation according to the interview that I saw. But he said that this 2015 election will be the last First Past The Post federal election in Canada.

 

[clu]

Welcome to the party. It's the same thing opponents of the Conservatives had been complaining about for the past 4 years where they had a majority on 39% of the vote and started enacting changes that most Canadians didn't want. At least the Liberals have pledged to fix it.

 

[ogreray]

Justin Trudeau would actually like to see a Preferential Ballot instead of Proportional Representation according to the interview that I saw. But he said that this 2015 election will be the last First Past The Post federal election in Canada.

That is his personal preference, but if he sets up a committee with all the major parties involved, he should be bound by their recommendations.

 

[Feenix]

I'm aware how the system works, but my point is that it is NOT a democracy. In your example (Burnaby-Seymour) Liberal candidate represents only 36% of the voters - so he has no mandate to make any decisions on behalf of 64%, and hence 64% is a clear majority, he has no mandate at all.

This contradiction can be easily resolved by the second round of election when only two front-runners compete, and one of them will surely get 50+% of votes.

It is a democracy, because that is how the current system works. The first across the line wins. As was mentioned in one of the above posts, a multi-party system invites lopsided power, where a party with 40% of the votes gets control. A two party system prevents that scenario because one party will likely get 50% plus 1 of the seats.

IMHO, the best governments are minority governments because then the "ruling" party must work with others to get things done. Cananda's health care and pension plan were brought in under minority governments.

Proportional representation is a permanent form of minority. Many countries around the world use one form or another of proportional representation.

Harper is despised by many because he failed to take the 60% of us who do not agree with his vision of Canada into account. He brought on his own demise, and probably stayed one election too many.

 

[torcat]

never considered that or read about this concept....
what you are suggesting is a tournament....
voters and parties then have an agenda of placing themselves in the top 2.....parties that wont be in the running....well what is their use now?

With the current system all the votes except for a winning candidate are discarded anyway, which in some extreme cases may result in up to 80-85% of votes thrown out. As if those people did not vote at all. Which means they can't exercise their constitutional right though technically they do vote. And sending an MP to Ottawa with only 15-40% approval rate in his/her riding is as irresponsible and undemocratic as it gets. And possibly fraudulent. Statistically around 5 million votes are wasted this way during each federal election. The second round of voting would solve this problem and in very many cases produce a different (real) winner.

The only result of the current system (and probably the purpose of it) is to ensure that the majority of the population is unable to participate in political decision making. And to create an illusion for the victims that they do.

 

[torcat]

It is a democracy, because that is how the current system works. The first across the line wins. As was mentioned in one of the above posts, a multi-party system invites lopsided power, where a party with 40% of the votes gets control. A two party system prevents that scenario because one party will likely get 50% plus 1 of the seats.

IMHO, the best governments are minority governments because then the "ruling" party must work with others to get things done. Cananda's health care and pension plan were brought in under minority governments.

Proportional representation is a permanent form of minority. Many countries around the world use one form or another of proportional representation.

Harper is despised by many because he failed to take the 60% of us who do not agree with his vision of Canada into account. He brought on his own demise, and probably stayed one election too many.

Well, that's how the current system does NOT work simply because it produces irrational results. 60.5% of voters said 'NO' to Liberals, and Trudeau is still the Prime Minister of the MAJORITY government. Why does the system disrespect and totally ignore the opinion of 60.5% of voters? Trudeau/Liberals have no mandate to rule this country.

 

[PierreCoeur]

So Liberals got only 39.5% of all votes, but somehow won 184 seats in the parliament. All other parties together won 154 seats. That's 30 seats difference.

That means Liberals have absolute majority and can easily pass ANY law in spite of the fact that 60.5% of voters do NOT want them to be the ruling party, not mentioning giving them unlimited power. If this is a democracy, what is not?


http://www.cbc.ca/includes/federalelection/dashboard/index.html

So let's get this straight . . . when your Conservative party got 39.5% of the popular vote in 2011 they should have not been allowed to govern Canada? Well I will be damned it is funny how when the tables are turned you call it undemocratic LOL Shake your head and pull it out of your a-hole. The Liberals have a majority government under the election rules. Live with it . . . like I had to live with Harper's dictatorship for the last several years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/politics/canadavotes2011/

 

[PierreCoeur]

Dare I mention that the Conservatives only had 37% of the popular vote in 2008 with Harper as Prime Minister ? To get my point across ? http://store.ottawacitizen.com/products/harper-returns-stronger
Conservatives are nothing but poor sport losers when defeat comes their way

 

[sdw]

I think that Conservatives had less than that last time??

No about the same. The Conservatives got 39.6% of the vote in 2011, this time the Liberals got 39% of the vote. The effect is the same under First Past The Post. If your "Voting Efficiency" is good, you get a disproportionate share of the positions available.

 

[torcat]

So let's get this straight . . . when your Conservative party got 39.5% of the popular vote in 2011 they should have not been allowed to govern Canada? Well I will be damned it is funny how when the tables are turned you call it undemocratic LOL Shake your head and pull it out of your a-hole. The Liberals have a majority government under the election rules. Live with it . . . like I had to live with Harper's dictatorship for the last several years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/politics/canadavotes2011/

I'm not a Harper supporter, and actually this time after researching the election system in great detail I decided not to vote at all. There is no point in voting as the likely consequence will be an extremist minority in power for four more years.

 

[hornygandalf]

Well, that's how the current system does NOT work simply because it produces irrational results. 60.5% of voters said 'NO' to Liberals, and Trudeau is still the Prime Minister of the MAJORITY government. Why does the system disrespect and totally ignore the opinion of 60.5% of voters? Trudeau/Liberals have no mandate to rule this country.

On this basis no government since Mulroney in 1984 has had a mandate to rule, and Mulroney with 50.03% only just did.
But, it depends on how you define 'mandate to rule.' If that means the party with the largest number of seats, then there isn't a problem.
If you want a party to have more than 50% of the vote, that is going to be more difficult with a system where there is more than two parties.

But, that is why we need a change away from first-past-the-post.