If a Federal Election was held next week, who would you vote for?

[vancity_cowboy]

You certainly do make a case for proportional representation, Hank, but I would like to write concisely about its deficiencies: When competing parties are in power together, the parliamentry activities become bogged down with strategic alliances, strategic voting and inevitable corruption so that what once appeared to be a good system turns against itself. Also, when any party can muster a minimum of 2% of the public's votes, and 2% represents all that is required in order to have official representation, parliament becomes a quagmire.

that's right juniper - if there's a way to corrupt the democratic process, those friggin' leeches called politicians will certainly find it

look at what the american politicians have done in the face of the american constitution! the constitution was drafted by some very smart people and was a very fine document in it's day. but the american politicians have managed to completely corrupt it

 

[VanessaofBC]

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me that the next logical progression in our democratic society is for the political parties to pay for people to vote for them. Look in the US, reports ranged that 2-6 billion dollars was spent on the election. Most of the money was given for private advertising. It would make more sense to cut the middle man out and MAYBE get a person to vote for your political party, when you can pay the voter direct to vote for your party with proof (via pictures). Really, the government only has as much power as the people give it. And it's quite clear that the president's don't have any real power. They are just a symbolic figure to a very corrupt machine. Obama couldn't shut down Gitmo for Athena's Sake!

Same thing, but on a smaller scale happens in Canada. Our current Premier has made no attempt to hide the fact that she wants minority voters. What if the People decided that it'd cost her for their vote? I'm sure their are people here who would argue that it'd make a difference if a Liberal wasn't in power. But that's bullshit. They're all a bunch of sociopaths who checked their morals at the door when they became politicians who are only after their own best interests.

It is inevitable that they will pay for votes.

I don't sound like too much of a person wearing a tin foil hat, I hope?

That would be grossly ILLEGAL good Sir. Right now, they way the emails are presented to me, is that the Cons have larger donations and therefore a larger budget to work with which in the end results in more votes.

 

[HankQuinlan]

You certainly do make a case for proportional representation, Hank, but I would like to write concisely about its deficiencies: When competing parties are in power together, the parliamentry activities become bogged down with strategic alliances, strategic voting and inevitable corruption so that what once appeared to be a good system turns against itself. Also, when any party can muster a minimum of 2% of the public's votes, and 2% represents all that is required in order to have official representation, parliament becomes a quagmire.

I don't see any reason why co-operation between parties would lead to more corruption than one party in power by itself. One party or another may have to compromise some of their principles to get legislation through -- that could be a good thing. If they can't get 50% of the votes, then it doesn't get passed -- also a good thing. As far as fringe parties, make it 5% or 10% of the votes or something before they get a seat. Normally, some centrist parties are able to make a coalition -- if it doesn't work and nothing gets done, then next election a really popular party might get the required 50% plus one and have a genuine rather than fake majority.

The truth is -- I just don't like the current government ramming crap through in their omnibus bills, with no way to compromise sections of them that are particularly egregious. If they had to co-operate, that would change.

 

[juniper]

The key is, making the entranceway to representation in parliament at least 5 and maybe 10%. This would pretty much do away with fringe parties and virtual stalemates as well.

I don't see any reason why co-operation between parties would lead to more corruption than one party in power by itself. One party or another may have to compromise some of their principles to get legislation through -- that could be a good thing. If they can't get 50% of the votes, then it doesn't get passed -- also a good thing. As far as fringe parties, make it 5% or 10% of the votes or something before they get a seat. Normally, some centrist parties are able to make a coalition -- if it doesn't work and nothing gets done, then next election a really popular party might get the required 50% plus one and have a genuine rather than fake majority.

The truth is -- I just don't like the current government ramming crap through in their omnibus bills, with no way to compromise sections of them that are particularly egregious. If they had to co-operate, that would change.

 

[sdw]

Hmm, it's definitely a lot trickier in Canada than it is in America. Perhaps they can hire each individual voter as a political party campaigner/organizer or something? Surely it can be slightly modified. Corporations are people for God's sakes!

That would be grossly ILLEGAL good Sir. Right now, they way the emails are presented to me, is that the Cons have larger donations and therefore a larger budget to work with which in the end results in more votes.

What the conservatives are generally getting is the maximum from each donor. Trudeau went around the country asking for and receiving $100, the NDP accepts $1 for it's membership fee.

How much you get is generally related to how much you ask for. The Conservatives ask for $1200 in cash or $100 per month, the Liberals give their membership away for $100 and the right to vote for their leader free of charge, the NDP only asks for $1 for their membership and the right to vote in nomination campaigns.

The last set of numbers I saw had the Liberals with many more individual donors than the Conservatives, however the amount per donor is much less.

For 2014 the maximum donation is $1200 for a federal political party. This is for all activities, so if a person donates to a leadership or nomination campaign - - - that amount isn't available to donate to an election campaign.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=lim&document=index&lang=e

And, Yes, Elections Canada does audit contributions and spending as Ex-Conservative Dean Del Mastro can attest. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...canada-with-concealing-21000/article14547903/

The other reason the Conservatives have a lot more money socked away is that they ask every year instead of just when there is a leadership, nomination or election happening.

The way for people to beat the Conservatives in 2015 is for everyone who doesn't support the Conservatives to give $100 a month or $1200 per year to the Liberal Party of Canada.

 

[Tugela]

Trudeau (le pere) was elegant, brilliant, untouchable and very distant from the problems of everyday people. He did more harm than good. Nonetheless, I do admire him for how he conducted himself, raising his boys during his latter years in power while Maggie went traipsing around. His son maintains some of the Trudeau charisma but I also think "charisma" is often overrated. Furthermore, he really trades on the "Trudeau" name but lacks experience. The liberal contingent shows itself to be quite shallow when they have to put Trudeau (le fils) in relief.

I grew to become a believer in Stephen Harper starting from the days when he carefully mended the two factions of conservatism in this country to carrying on in two minority governments and finally in a majority one. He comes across as very very solid, a wonderful family man who also possesses a good deal of integrity. He has been in office a long time now. He has taken Canada through earthshaking economic times with hardly a scratch. Compared to the USA and the western European nations, Canada is in pretty good shape both socially and economically. I think he will relinquish his position before the next election and allow the (conservative) party to choose a new leader. I expect that the conservative party will be voted back into power partly due to its previous excellent record and partially due to the lack of a viable opposition.

Canada is in good shape not because of anything Harper did. It was the groundwork of the previous government that allowed us to weather the economic storm reasonably well.

In political and economic terms the current status of any community is the consequence of policies from a decade before, not those of whatever group is in power at the moment. You will only be able to judge Harper's effect 10 years from now.

 

[sdw]

And it just gets worse for the Conservatives

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W13-T588E.pdf

EKOs poll.
Oct 29 http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_october_29_2013.pdf
Oct 30 http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/vote_intention_october_30_2013.pdf

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos Political Index 2013-10-25E.pdf (pages 24 to 26 for voting intention)

I think it probably is about this bad for the Conservatives.

 

[HunkyBill]

haven't we learned from the last BC and Alberta elections that the polls are now all bogus?

 

[VanessaofBC]

haven't we learned from the last BC and Alberta elections that the polls are now all bogus?

Well, I am on YouTube all the time and they started their YouTube campaign today. Their plan is to have every Canadian who watches YouTube to see the video. There is also a banner with Justins picture that says "Are you In?"

 

[HunkyBill]

Interesting strategy. I am almost never on Youtube. I hope it works for the Liberals.

 

[sdw]

haven't we learned from the last BC and Alberta elections that the polls are now all bogus?

The last federal (2011) the polls were correct - - - some of the media didn't want to believe the Liberals were going to get hammered with the "Layton Effect", but the actual data was correct.

I think that in BC and Alberta the NDP and Wildrose lost because they said stuff that made the voter go "hold on there, I don't support that" and the pollsters couldn't pick up the change. I remember seeing the media basically saying the NDP had it in the bag the day before the election, they didn't pick up that the NDP had overplayed their hand on opposition to pipelines.

 

[VanessaofBC]

The last federal (2011) the polls were correct - - - some of the media didn't want to believe the Liberals were going to get hammered with the "Layton Effect", but the actual data was correct.

I think that in BC and Alberta the NDP and Wildrose lost because they said stuff that made the voter go "hold on there, I don't support that" and the pollsters couldn't pick up the change. I remember seeing the media basically saying the NDP had it in the bag the day before the election, they didn't pick up that the NDP had overplayed their hand on opposition to pipelines.

The pipeline, the pipeline. it always comes up and I am afraid to say it will be built it is just a matter if it will be built west or east to St. John's.

 

[sdw]

The pipeline, the pipeline. it always comes up and I am afraid to say it will be built it is just a matter if it will be built west or east to St. John's.

East right now. The money needed to build west knows that there is too much opposition in BC right now. Going east is mostly in existing pipeline right of way and there are the two refineries that will be able to stop buying offshore oil. Going west will be done when the opposition isn't as intense and most likely using the existing pipeline right of way that Kinder Morgan operates. That will probably happen when Chevron finds themselves without oil because Kinder Morgan can make more selling to Cherry Point. That's where 50% of the flow from that pipeline already goes. With no politically viable terminal in BC, Cherry Point is where the other 50% of the flow will go.

 

[Man Mountain]

Well, I am on YouTube all the time and they started their YouTube campaign today. Their plan is to have every Canadian who watches YouTube to see the video. There is also a banner with Justins picture that says "Are you In?"

Interesting strategy. I am almost never on Youtube. I hope it works for the Liberals.

"You can skip this ad in 5...4...3...2...1...SKIP AD!" Hey! I've got music videos by The Killers and My Chemical Romance to watch! :fear:

 

[VanessaofBC]

In what? Shit? Canada? My pants? supporting nepotism?

Relevant:

buffering...........^^^ ound: