NL Election 2011, continued
October 11, 2011 - 7:42pm
...
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Both St. John's Centre (Gerry Rogers) & St. John's East (George Murphy) are looking like NDP pick-ups.
Liberals elected in 3 seats (Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, Bay of Islands and Burgeo-La Poile), leading in 2 more (Torngat Mountains and St. Barbe), and hot on the heels of the Tories in Humber Valley, so they could conceivably get to 6.
The NDP is elected in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and St. John's North, has decent leads (400+ votes) in St. John's Centre and St. John's East, a 200-vote lead in The Straits-White Bay North, and a tiny lead of just 25 in Burin-Placentia West. I don't think they are close anywhere else.
The Liberals could yet finish better than the NDP in the seat count. Even a tie means they retain Official Opposition status. Looks like rural voters in Western Newfoundland and Labrador have saved the Liberals from electoral oblivion.
Some of the polls left are the advance polls, the NDP may not get those rural ridings. Its incredibly close.
The NDP lost Burin—Placentia West on the advance polls and special ballots. Forty votes.
The Liberals could yet finish better than the NDP in the seat count. Even a tie means they retain Official Opposition status.
Well... maybe.
The NDP has lost Burin-Placentia West by 40 votes. They should win The Straits-White Bay North - there is only one poll left to report and Mitchelmore has a 235-vote lead. St. John's East is not called but the NDP has a 500-vote lead with only 5 polls left to report.
Unless the Tories manage to retake the lead in St. Barbe, the Liberals will be the Official Opposition. Where there is a tie, the Speaker determines who will form the Official Opposition, but by convention the incumbent party remains the Official Opposition. I suppose the NDP could make the pitch that they beat the Liberals in the popular vote, but as we all know in a FPTP system that doesn't usually count for much.
Liberals declared elected in St. Barbe.
Mitchelmore is elected in The Straits-White Bay North by 200 votes. St. John's East called for the NDP.
The Liberals could still take Humber Valley - they are only 68 votes behind the Tories. Labrador West is the only other uncalled seat but the Tories have a healthy 600-vote lead with just 3 polls left so I'm not sure why it hasn't been called.
Looks like the final numbers (barring recounts) are 37 or 38 PC, 5 or 6 Lib, 5 NDP, depending on the outcome of Humber Valley.
Not quite so good as hoped, but 5 seats isn't too bad.
The NDP tripled its popular vote and quintupled its seat count from the last election, but still it's a bit disappointing to see the Liberals (likely) retain Official Opposition status when they appeared to be on the ropes. Then again, this is the one Province that still voted overwhelmingly for the federal Liberals in May, so I suppose we should not be too surprised at the outcome.
Listening to the commentary on CBC NL it is not at all clear who becomes the official opposition in case of a tie. The speaker will take various factors into consideration including POPULAR VOTE.
This is the best result in NL NDP history. More importantly some of the new MHAs sound like strong reps. Frankly this is a great result to build on. If the NL NDP can hold its ground/prove its mettle in the next session, this campaign has shown how high the ceiling has become (the 33% support and 45% of second choices poll that came out this election was astounding...but the party has to lay solid foundations across the ridings to capture that support).
The Liberals won Humber Valley.
Now, 37 PC, 6 Lib, 5 NDP :(
Listening to the commentary on CBC NL it is not at all clear who becomes the official opposition in case of a tie. The speaker will take various factors into consideration including POPULAR VOTE.
When the Speaker of the New Brunswick legislature was called on to address the issue in the 1990s, the Speaker reviewed the authorities and concluded that the key factor was incumbency, and that convention favoured the incumbent opposition following an election:
In this light, Speaker Dysart saw incumbency as the key factor in determining the official opposition party when parties are tied. This is first evident after a general election at the start of a new legislature. The official opposition party in the previous legislature, if it finds itself tied with another party as the second largest party, retains its position in the new legislature. The same convention holds between general elections. That is, during a legislature, if another party should achieve a tie in standing with the official opposition party, the latter retains its position. Incumbency again is the rule. Speaker Dysart found this to have been the case in previous Canadian examples and thereby ruled in favour of CoR retaining its official opposition status in New Brunswick.
...
The third factor, popular vote, has a democratic or populist appeal. But popular vote is limited at best to the start of a legislature following a general election and then only as a supplemental factor.
Source: Canadian Parliamentary Review.
So while the decision is still within the Speaker's discretion, precedent dictates that the Liberals remain the Official Opposition.
And after posting all that, I see that it's all moot with the Liberals winning in Humber Valley.
Anyways, congrats to the NDP on their greatest victory in Newfoundland and Labrador!
Official party status requires 4 seats. I assume this is the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador history that two opposition parties have won at least 4 seats.
yes congrats fellow NDPers!
Our expectations have been so raised by some of the events of the past six months that we feel slightly disappointed by results that would have been considered good beyond belief just a few months ago. If you had told me in February that the NDP would get 23% in Ontario and go from 10 seats to 17 - I would have thought you were nuts. If you had told me two months ago that the Newfoundland NDP would quadruple its vote and go from one seat to five - i also would have thought you were nuts.
But, I think that these results show us that massive sweeps out of now ehere like the Orange Crush in Quebec happen once in a lifetime. The rest of the time you can never underestimate your opponents and you have to claw your way up one seat at a time. The Liberals are like cockroaches - you keep stepping on them over and over again and they still aren't quite dead - yet.
I think that's right. IIRC, the best the NDP had done up to this point was 2 seats (1999 and 2003).
One particularly important aspect of tonight's result, in my view, is that while Liberal support was largely concentrated in rural Western Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador, they were pretty much decimated everywhere else and did particularly poorly in metro St. John's. I don't think they had more than maybe one or two second-place finishes on the entire Avalon peninsula.
While NDP support was largely centred in and around metro St. John's, they also did fairly well in some 'non-traditional' areas like The Straits-White Bay North and Burin-Placentia West. This suggests to me that when support for the Tories does eventually falter, the NDP may be better positioned to capture that defecting Tory support than the Liberals. In other words, the long term trends here probably favour the NDP, if they can keep the momentum.
What sucks is that we got over 5% more of the vote than the Liberals but one less seat.
This shows the potential to grow. The NDP finished a credible 2nd in many ridings.
This shows the potential to grow. The NDP finished a credible 2nd in many ridings.
Potential, yes. But it would have been huge for the NDP to have the status of offical opposition.
There'll be quite a few by-elections coming up sooner than later for the NDP to compete in.
Any PCs who get shuffled out of cabinet, their resignations will be in 1-2 years.
That might include Clyde Jackman and Ross Wiseman.
This shows the potential to grow. The NDP finished a credible 2nd in many ridings.
True
If the NL NDP makes a few changes, and prepares well enough, maybe next time. As it stands, this is a big boost for the NL NDP's credibility. 5 MHAs vs. 1 is night and day...just ask the Alberta NDP.
I think I need to puke.
Newfoundland may have bucked the trend of moving towards a polarized Tory-NDP spectrum, but meanwhile in Yukon the NDP is on track to go from 1 seat to Official Opposition status, while the Liberals have lost their leader and will be lucky to escape with two seats.
Vote share:
PC 56.09%
NDP 24.64%
Lib 19.07%.
Four MLAS from St. John's and an interesting fellow from the northern tip of Newfoundland: Christopher Mitchelmore, employed by Community Business Development Corporation Nortip, an advocate for Rural Community Economic and Business Development.
I'm surprised to see the disappointment and seat-centric analysis here.
The NDP placed 2nd in the province. Meaning: more voters chose the NDP than the Liberals.
A difference of about 250 votes (combined) allowed the Liberals to snatch Torngat Mountains, St. Barbe and Humber Valley from the PCs.
A difference of a little over 300 votes (combined) prevented the NDP from getting St. John's West and Burin-Placentia West.
Plus, and in confirmation of the regional polling data from CRA and Environics, each party seems to increasingly have strongholds in each of three regions: the Liberals in the West + Labrador; the PCs in the East and rural Avalon; and the NDP in urban Newfoundland, especially St. John's.
This regionalization of the vote, and the existence of a three-party system, is not terribly different from what exists in Nova Scotia and Ontario.
Technically the NDP was second in the popular vote, so it's not a huge victory for the Liberals.
That said, I think that polarization will eventually come to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an historic high for the NDP, and they nearly took other seats as well. I would imagine they are well positioned to move forward, especially if the federal NDP rises while the federal Liberals continue to tank.
I think the advantage will be to the NDP in the House, they Liberals lost their leader so again have to find a new one in less than a year, they are largely a western NFLD and Labrador based party with very little room to grow. The NDP has its leader in the House which as we see federally gets you more news coverage.
Some local indicators; in Labrador West, the NDP candidate was new to the area so i hear (Newfoundlanders can help correct me) and if the membership had selected a more local candidate things might have gone differently, as you can see in Lake Melville where the NDP did better. So Western Labrador is PC/NDP battle while the Eastern side is PC/LIB battle (i think much of that is Yvonne Jones herself)
Will there be a recount in Burin-Placentia West? Cause if i were the NDP i'd want one. If it falls into the NDP camp then there would be a tie in seats.
the Liberal vote in St. John's CRASHED! Their best showing was St John's West at 19% (cost us that riding!)... but that was an outlier, in some ridings they only got 2%...
Recent provincial results make it quite clear that the only Orange Crush in 2011 was in Quebec.
Meh, we've seen more of an Orange Wave... historic gains in NFLD, big wins in ON and YK, and a historic fourth term in MAN... thats nothing to look down on. I think most NewDemocrats are pretty happy so far in 2011 with the parties performance.
The Liberals had a mixed bag... BIG losses in the YK, almost obliteration in MAN; but held on to gov't in ON barely, and came back from the dead in NFLD but lost another leader. The tories too can look at this as a mixed bag... losing two campaigns they were suppose to win in MAN and ON, but held on to gov't in NFLD and YK but now face stronger oppositions.
SASK being next is expected to be a disaster, but as these last elections taught us, one can't call things just yet.
The Liberals had a mixed bag... BIG losses in the YK, almost obliteration in MAN; but held on to gov't in ON barely, and came back from the dead in NFLD but lost another leader. The tories too can look at this as a mixed bag... losing two campaigns they were suppose to win in MAN and ON, but held on to gov't in NFLD and YK but now face stronger oppositions.
Winning 53 seats and being one away from a majority is barely hanging on to government?
A minority is still a minority, or a major-minority or whatever the rediculous statement was. Dalton is grossely arrogant... and yes i said it was a mixed bag, the ON election was nothing but a success for the Liberals... but a muted one since they now have to a) play nice with the opposition, which is not looking so hot at the moment or b) steal an MPP from the opposition.
Close only counts in horse shoes. It doesn't matter whether you are 10 seats short of a majority or one seat short - its stil a MINORITY. the fact is that if McGuinty does anything really scandalous - the opposition parties can dump him.
When Harper had momentum after the 2006 election and after the 2008 election, he could threaten to call everything a confidence issue and force the Liberals to abstain.
McGuinty has no momentum. If he threatened to make every bill a confidence issue, he would have no credibility and most media commentators would laugh.
He will have to come to Andrea Horwath or Tim Hudak to get bills passed.
There will also be many bills that will NOT be confidence bills that may or may not pass and also the opposition will have majorities on legislative committees and will be able to demand information and start to investigate things.
Oh yes, i almost forgot about the majority on committees, if anything thats a huge success for the NDP alone....
But with NFLD, maybe someone can explain how the Liberals managed to dominate on the Western coast? I give them credit for being very efficient with their vote.
I like how we're annoyed that the Liberals have one more seat rather than pleased that the Tories have one less. It shows how low the Liberals continue to sink in the esteem of NDP supporters. You're heading down a one-way road Debater, watch out for the dead-end!
But with NFLD, maybe someone can explain how the Liberals managed to dominate on the Western coast? I give them credit for being very efficient with their vote.
It's not abnormal for the Liberals to do well in rural Newfoundland and on the West Coast and Labrador specifically. Historical voting patterns show that, but in this election, the Liberals - like the NDP in St. John's - drew on their strengths by targetting this region and abandoning others. Their platform and campaign was completely geared towards the fishery, rural issues, and their particular slant on energy issues.
The 2007 election was an abberration of sorts, with the combo of Danny Williams' popularity and the Hebron announcement. This allowed the PCs to take seats such as those on the West Coast that otherwise Liberals would traditionally have won.
Of the 13 districts on the West Coast + Labrador, the Liberal wins tended to be fairly close (except Cartwright L'Anse Au Clair), and two were extremely so (St. Barbe + Humber Valley). PC wins were much more comfortable by contrast (Port Au Port, Humber West and Humber East were landslides). The NDP took one seat in the region (The Straits White Bay North).
If anyone is dominant on the West Coast, it's still the PCs. The PCs got half the vote in the region, whereas the Liberals got about one third there.
Mitchelmore - youtube interview, anxious to get to work.
Dale Kirby
A particularly odious dark corner of Newfoundland and Labrador politics may well get an airing over the coming weeks, as the NDP is challenging the validity of "special ballots" cast in the hotly-contested district of Burin-Placentia West. The NDP lost the district by 40 votes to the PC incumbent, but the result would have been reversed had the special ballots not been counted. This method of voting permits a person who will not be in the district on election day to apply for a ballot and to mail it in to the chief electoral office. So far, three non-residents - who voted in the district by special ballot in Burin-Placentia West - have been uncovered. It is assumed that numerous people who work in Alberta voted this way, and it is furthermore suspected that many of them actually have a residence in that province.
Ironically, several years ago the government did away with balloting in St. John's for students who wished to vote in their home districts, due to concerns over vote rigging. However, special ballots are still permitted, despite the possibilities for widespread abuse.
We shall wait to see what happens next.
Only Liberals will tell you, without batting an eye, that losing, is it 20 whatever, losing 25% of your seats, is some kind of a success story. LOL
Anyway Stockholm nailed it.
The Liberals had awith astraight face that losing 18 seats mixed bag... BIG losses in the YK, almost obliteration in MAN; but held on to gov't in ON barely, and came back from the dead in NFLD but lost another leader. The tories too can look at this as a mixed bag... losing two campaigns they were suppose to win in MAN and ON, but held on to gov't in NFLD and YK but now face stronger oppositions.
Winning 53 seats and being one away from a majority is barely hanging on to government?
Ironically, several years ago the government did away with balloting in St. John's for students who wished to vote in their home districts, due to concerns over vote rigging. However, special ballots are still permitted, despite the possibilities for widespread abuse.
IR, do you have a source for this? I believe you, but I would like to look into this a bit further. It was my impression that the special ballot procedures for students in St. John's (although I assume it's not limited to St. John's) is still ongoing... and still a mess.
My recollection from the 2003 and 2007 elections is that party workers would be on campuses in St. John's, signing students up to vote by special ballot, and then either (a) never delivering the ballot - so the student is marked down in NL Election's records as having voted in their home district even though they HAVEN'T or (b) taking students' ballots and then.... who knows? Mailing the ballots off to the DRO for the district that they're from? Right. Maybe.
Does this procedure exist federally, or in other provinces?
IR, I believe that the issue in the Burin-Placentia West results is that these special ballots were cast by people who don't even live in Burin-Placentia West, and/or they are part of Newfoundland's bizarre new pre-writ voting process. Is that your sense as well?
For those of you from outside NL: there's a provision in the provincial Elections Act that was passed in 2006 as a result of a recommendation by then NL Elections CEO (and Liberal) Chuck Furey that allows voters to vote upto a month BEFORE the writ is even dropped. I am not sure of the details but I think this pre-writ ballot just allows voters to write in the name of a candidate (even before the candidate list is formalized and finalized) and/or the name of a political party -- even though at the time this amendment was passed it was common for at least one of NL's three recognized political parties to not have a full slate of candidates for all 48 districts.
Source for recount story: CBC
IR, do you have a source for this? I believe you, but I would like to look into this a bit further. It was my impression that the special ballot procedures for students in St. John's (although I assume it's not limited to St. John's) is still ongoing... and still a mess.
My recollection from the 2003 and 2007 elections is that party workers would be on campuses in St. John's, signing students up to vote by special ballot, and then either (a) never delivering the ballot - so the student is marked down in NL Election's records as having voted in their home district even though they HAVEN'T or (b) taking students' ballots and then.... who knows? Mailing the ballots off to the DRO for the district that they're from? Right. Maybe.
Does this procedure exist federally, or in other provinces?
IR, I believe that the issue in the Burin-Placentia West results is that these special ballots were cast by people who don't even live in Burin-Placentia West, and/or they are part of Newfoundland's bizarre new pre-writ voting process. Is that your sense as well?
For those of you from outside NL: there's a provision in the provincial Elections Act that was passed in 2006 as a result of a recommendation by then NL Elections CEO (and Liberal) Chuck Furey that allows voters to vote upto a month BEFORE the writ is even dropped. I am not sure of the details but I think this pre-writ ballot just allows voters to write in the name of a candidate (even before the candidate list is formalized and finalized) and/or the name of a political party -- even though at the time this amendment was passed it was common for at least one of NL's three recognized political parties to not have a full slate of candidates for all 48 districts.
1. The question of "ordinary residency", especially those who work (and live?) outside the district and / or the province.
2. Voting in retirement homes.
As for pre-writ voting, yes people could begin voting three weeks prior to the commencement of the election itself. This rule offers a huge advantage to incumbents, since opposition candidates are not allowed to directly solicit funds or officially spend any money prior to the official dropping of the writ. It is far from clear whether it would stand up to a court challenge, but whose going to spend money on this cause?
The Newfoundland and Labrador Elections Act allows pre-writ voting (which I've since found out only exists in Newfoundland & Labrador and nowhere else in Canada) a full four weeks before the issuing of the elections writ. The problems with that are self-evident, including the effect it has on favouring incumbents that you pointed out IR.
And as a result of some amendments also made in 2007, the Elections Act now stipulates that:
S. 86.4 (5): A special ballot kit shall be returned to the Chief Electoral Officer by the elector or an election official only.
S. 86.4 (6): Where a voter requires assistance in the completion of his or her special ballot, that assistance shall be provided by an election official only.
I'm not sure about the setting-up of polling stations or ballot boxes on campus or whether or not that was done away with (I actually support that), but the problem of party workers on campus dispensing and collecting special ballots looks like it was probably outlawed in '07 with sections 86.4 (4-6) above. Which is good.
For anyone who wants to review Julie Mitchell's Supreme Court petition for a judicial recount, read it here.
I forgot to check back here after the election. Nothing was really surprise in the results. The NDP taking St. John's East was not expected by either the party or the PCs, though I had originally thought the party had a good shot. The PC candidate in SJE had actually been helping Shawn Skinner on the day of the election in St. John's South because it seemed like he would easily win, but in the end they were unable to get voters out. The Straits White Bay North was obviously suprising for everyone. Pundits were predicting a strong showing by the NDP but it was thought that they would just take away support from the Liberals and the PCs would take the seat, in the end a three way split ended up benefitting the NDP. The party not winning Burin Placentia West was not good for them because it almost seemed like a sure sure thing. As well the party losing support to both the Liberals and PCs in Labrador West was a bit of a blow and shows just how important candidates are.
Official party status requires 4 seats. I assume this is the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador history that two opposition parties have won at least 4 seats.
After Joey Smallwood was defeated in the 70's he came back witht the Liberal Reform Party and they managed to win four seats in one election, so this would be the second time that we had to parties holding official party status.
There'll be quite a few by-elections coming up sooner than later for the NDP to compete in.
Any PCs who get shuffled out of cabinet, their resignations will be in 1-2 years.
That might include Clyde Jackman and Ross Wiseman.
It won't matter once the Liberals become the Official Opposition they can't lose it, so they will be the Official Opposition for the next four years.
What will be interesting with the NDP going forward will be the leadership of the party. Lorraine Michael will likely resign over next couple of years and the party may have their first ever "real" leadership race, it will be interesting to see how this effects the party going forward. At the moment I think Dale Kirby would likely be the frontrunner for the next leader, while the man is quite smart he's a bit boring. I have noticed he's able to come up with good sound bites but he's not able to say them in a way whereby they stand out, if that makes any sense. Someone else who I think could possibly take a run at the leadership is MP Ryan Cleary, though I've heard a number of people say that they think he may not stick around in politics to long.
It won't matter once the Liberals become the Official Opposition they can't lose it, so they will be the Official Opposition for the next four years.
Where on earth does that idea come from? If 5 of the 6 members of the Liberal caucus in the House of Assembly quit tomorrow, would anyone think that the lone member remaining would be Leader of the Official Opposition? The Speaker almost certainly would not.
As seat counts change, official designations can change. In a parliamentary democracy, the Speaker would be asked to rule on whether or not Facts A and B changing are enough to have him declare that the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has changed -- and a ruiling would be made on those facts. Nothing is automatically fixed in place for a day regardless of the facts, let alone for an entire term of government. Stuff happens.
It won't matter once the Liberals become the Official Opposition they can't lose it, so they will be the Official Opposition for the next four years.
Where on earth does that idea come from? If 5 of the 6 members of the Liberal caucus in the House of Assembly quit tomorrow, would anyone think that the lone member remaining would be Leader of the Official Opposition? The Speaker almost certainly would not.
As seat counts change, official designations can change. In a parliamentary democracy, the Speaker would be asked to rule on whether or not Facts A and B changing are enough to have him declare that the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has changed -- and a ruiling would be made on those facts. Nothing is automatically fixed in place for a day regardless of the facts, let alone for an entire term of government. Stuff happens.
The former speaker stated it and I heard it mentioned elsewhere. The incumbent Official Opposition party would remain.
I'm quite certain you are wrong about that. There have been several cases in Canadians provinces where because of byelections or defections one opposition party overtook another - invariably that meant that the "official opposition" changed.
Newfoundlander...why do you assume that Lorraine Michael will resign? It's not as if she was a failure in this campaign..The NDP did finish second in the popular vote and did end up with its best provincial seat count of all time in NFLD, even if they were one seat behind the Liberals.
I think we should take Newfoundlander's comments with a boulder of salt. If you look back at all his pedictions in the previous thread about the NL election, he was 100% wrong about almost everything. Its particularly amusing to see how he thought that the PC candidate was going to give Lorraine Michael a run for her money in her own riding - she wound up getting 70% of the vote!
Newfoundlander...why do you assume that Lorraine Michael will resign? It's not as if she was a failure in this campaign..The NDP did finish second in the popular vote and did end up with its best provincial seat count of all time in NFLD, even if they were one seat behind the Liberals.
Well, there is the fact she will be 72 at the time of the next election
I suppose she would "retire" as opposed to "resign".
Indeed. A retirement for reasons of age(which would probably lead to her being elected provincial party president or something like that) is very different from having to "resign", an act which implies failure or some sort of disgrace.
I think we should take Newfoundlander's comments with a boulder of salt. If you look back at all his pedictions in the previous thread about the NL election, he was 100% wrong about almost everything. Its particularly amusing to see how he thought that the PC candidate was going to give Lorraine Michael a run for her money in her own riding - she wound up getting 70% of the vote!
I thought he would first when we only had one poll showing the NDP rising. I thought when he was nominated that he had a chance of beating her but it was quite evident by the time we got into the campaign that she would easily win. I also was correct in saying that the NDP would win both St. John's Centre and St. John's North, and that they could win St. John's East.
What were you so correct about? You were the one who said the NDP could win 8 seats and then you said they would have a "mini-Quebec style surge and sweep St. John's". You were 100% wrong and obviously don't know what you are talking about and everyone should find it amusing just how little you know.
Newfoundlander...why do you assume that Lorraine Michael will resign? It's not as if she was a failure in this campaign..The NDP did finish second in the popular vote and did end up with its best provincial seat count of all time in NFLD, even if they were one seat behind the Liberals.
Well, there is the fact she will be 72 at the time of the next election
That's exactly what I was getting at, retire is a better word then resign.
I think someone already linked to the Canadian Parliamentary Review article that gave a brief synopsis of past experiences where multiple opposition parties were tied in seat count. There is some precendent that could have favoured either the Liberals or the NDP had both parties won an equal number of seats. The Liberals could have counted on the "continuity" argument, and the NDP could have made a claim for official opposition status based on it having quite a bit more of the popular vote.
Actually, because of the peculiarities of what actually happened in the provincial election, had both the Liberals and NDP won the same number of seats, it seems like it would have been a first in Canada. (Previous cases of equal #'s of seats for multiple opposition parties involved gains and losses in between elections rather than immediately after them).
If the Liberal caucus was to hypothetically sink below the NDP's caucus in seat totals due to resignations and/or unfavourable by-elections, the only chance that the NDP would NOT become the official opposition is if they didn't ask the Speaker to grant it. [ETA: the article linked above cites two examples where the opposite was true, but notes the reasons were typically if the newly third place party became a third party late in the life of the legislature - that is to say, as a result of a resignation or defection, or, if it the downsizing of the official opposition party was only by one member rather than multiple members]
In any case, I wouldn't give too much credence to anything uttered by the previous Speaker of the House of Assembly, whose record was abysmal.
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-11-09/article-2800028/NDP-challenges-special-ballot-process/1
The long awaited constitutional challenge to the special ballot provisions of Newfoundland and Labrador's Elections Act is finally here, thanks to the NDP.
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-11-09/article-2800028/NDP-challenges-special-ballot-process/1
The long awaited constitutional challenge to the special ballot provisions of Newfoundland and Labrador's Elections Act is finally here, thanks to the NDP.
From what I've heard it's very unlikely this will pan out, if it were the results of the who election could almost be overthrown. There were Liberals who bet PCs because of the special ballots.
I fondly recall the days when I used to vote Liberal in the NL elections, because the beer was liberal...and free. We had Captain Canada and then Jolly Roger...and a ride to and from after a solid evening of 'politicking.' Yes me laddies...and I'm not the least bit ashamed of it either. You really have to experience cronyism from within to fully apprehend its many delights.
Thanks for that glimpse of democracy from the land of fog and cod, SJ!
NDP bid for Burin recount dismissed
A New Democrat's attempt to force a recount was dismissed Thursday at Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Julie Mitchell, who lost the race in Burin-Placentia West by 40 votes to Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Clyde Jackman, had wanted the court to order a new count of the ballots.
Justice David Orsborn dismissed the application during a proceeding Thursday in St. John's.
In the application, Mitchell had claimed some ballots weren't scrutinized as they were counted.
Her application also claimed that in three cases, people who did not live in the district voted there by special ballot.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/11/10/nl-ndp-burin-recount-1110.html
I think someone already linked to the Canadian Parliamentary Review article that gave a brief synopsis of past experiences where multiple opposition parties were tied in seat count. There is some precendent that could have favoured either the Liberals or the NDP had both parties won an equal number of seats. The Liberals could have counted on the "continuity" argument, and the NDP could have made a claim for official opposition status based on it having quite a bit more of the popular vote.
Actually, because of the peculiarities of what actually happened in the provincial election, had both the Liberals and NDP won the same number of seats, it seems like it would have been a first in Canada. (Previous cases of equal #'s of seats for multiple opposition parties involved gains and losses in between elections rather than immediately after them).
It's not totally unprecidented in Canada for two parties to tie for the second number of seats - although the closest example isn't a perfect fit. The link above makes only passing reference to it, but in the 1982 Alberta election, the NDP won two seats, and two independents (former Social Credit MLAs who left their party before the election) were also elected. The two independents chose to caucus together as the Representative Party, and petitioned the Speaker for Official Opposition Status. The Speaker ruled that the NDP become the Off Opp based largely on the fact that the NDP had recieved 19% of the vote and the two other MLAs had recieved much less.
It's not totally unprecidented in Canada for two parties to tie for the second number of seats - although the closest example isn't a perfect fit. The link above makes only passing reference to it, but in the 1982 Alberta election, the NDP won two seats, and two independents (former Social Credit MLAs who left their party before the election) were also elected...
That's what I cryptically edited-to-add. But thanks.
If anyone is still following the NDP's constitutional challenge to Newfoundland and Labrador's elections laws, THAT case is still ongoing and before the courts.
The CBC item linked above doesn't really give a full explanation as to what happened in court on November 10th. Julie Mitchell's application to review the vote in Burin-Placentia West was dismissed, but the other claim of hers to challenge some the very provisions of the Elections Act itself which led to the spurious outcomes in Burin-Placentia West is still ongoing:
NDP challenges special ballot process (November 9th)
Court rules no need for recount in Burin-Placentia West (November 10th)
NDP election recount denied (November 11th)
The results in that district still won't change because of this challenge. The rules around the special ballots may need to change before 2015 but nothing will happen with the 2011 results.
First post election poll in Nl was just released:
CRA numbers: PCs at 60 per cent, NDP 26 per cent, Liberals down at 13 per cent.
First post election poll in Nl was just released:
CRA numbers: PCs at 60 per cent, NDP 26 per cent, Liberals down at 13 per cent.
Here's the CBC story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/12/06/nl-poll-cra-liberals-plummet-1206.html
On another note, it was mentioned on On Point with David Cochrane this weekend that it is thought that Lorraine Michael will not remain leader for much longer, which was really no surprise. Also not surprising is that Dale Kirby is considered the person who will be their next leader.
The NDP are proceeding with a lawsuit over the results of the Burin Placentia West election. They're arguing thst special ballots are unconstitutional but now Lorriane Michael is facing a bit of criticism for not only supporting special ballots in 2007, but wanting them expanded.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/12/07/nl-...
The logic a few years ago was that this would help enfranchise large numbers of the province's voters who frequently go back and forth to other provinces like Alberta for work and might miss an election. So it looked good on paper.
Now that the law has actually manifested itself, my question is: why aren't the PCs and Libs sending their lawyers to help the NDP, as intervenors?
I don't understand what you mean?
The NL NDP has come to the conclusion that the special ballots legislation that they once supported is now wrong and in fact unconstitutional. Why don't the NL Liberals and PCs agree?
It seems like the NDP is getting more flack for "flip-flopping". The bigger issue is that neither the Liberals or Tories seem to care that the special ballots are unconstitutional.
The Libs and Tories should get their act together, come out against the special ballots provisions as well, and apply to act as intervenors in the court action on the side of the NDP, which, I gather from the CBC, is something the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is trying to do.
I don't see what proof there is that they are unconstitutional. The NDP only want the results of this particular district to be overthrown too.
I'd like to hear a quick explanation as to why they might be unconstitutional. Can anyone provide it?
The reasons why this is undemocratic and potentially unconstitutional are too numerous to do this swiftly, Lou, but they are all fairly self-evident. The legislation allows people to vote four weeks prior to the writ being dropped. This means that people will be voting in an election in which they actually don't know who the candidates or even the parties will ultimately be. In the case of by-elections in the past four years, the Chief Electoral Office has encouraged people to vote when no one, including even the Chief Electoral Officer or the government has announced a date for the by-election; in other words, well before the 4-week period prior to the writ.
This actually happened in Humber West in the February by-election earlier this year. The Chief Electoral Office was encouraging voters to vote as of November 2010.
Voters are encouraged by the Chief Electoral Office to just guess. Literally. While voters may enter the name of a candidate they suspect will run in the election, NL Elections officials themselves, perhaps recognizing the ridiculous and precarious situation this puts voters in, have instead encouraged voters in the past to write in the name of a political party in case there is a last minute change in who is actually running. (Source: the Western Star)
The constitutional implications of the Chief Electoral Officer telling voters to vote for parties (obviously benefitting incumbents, but also benefitting parties generally and adversely impacting independent candidates) would be more obvious if we didn't live in such partisan times.
Therefore there are the inevitable issues in any system where there are write-in candidates, but in this case, the issue is that people will be writing in names of people who are not yet legally "candidates" under the same Act.
In 2007, the same year these special balloting changes were passed, not every party ran a candidate in every district. In 2007's General, a voter could have voted NDP in: the Torngat Mountains; Cartwright-L'Anse Au Clair; Carbonear-Harbour Grace; Grand Bank; the Isles of Notre Dame; Gander; Exploits; Port Au Port; or St. George's Stephenville East; and such a voter would have had their vote rejected, since no NDP candidate ran in those ridings that year. That's something a fully informed voter would have had more awareness of if voters were permitted to vote only after , rather than BEFORE or after, the election campaign officially begins.
If your vote is rejected for a reason like the above, it's because you voted in a situation where you were not fully informed as a voter. That is a violation by the NL Elections Act in contravention of s.3 of the Charter according to this local Liberal blogger, who also cites Libman v. Quebec, Figueroa v. Canada and Haig v. Canada as important cases.
The NDP didn't see any issue with it after the 2007 election though.
After the 2007 the NDP had only on seat and no official party status and no money...they had other issues to worry about - like survival.
After the 2007 the NDP had only on seat and no official party status and no money...they had other issues to worry about - like survival.
So she couldn't bring it up in the House of Assembly, or during the election? Why does she only want the results of only one electoral district overthrown?
If the NDP want to fight this in the House of Assembly and get special ballots changed for 2015, all the power to them, but this is just blatant opportunism now.
Newfoundlander, with these last few posts, you've pretty much outed yourself as a hardcore Liberal Party supporter. Did you mean to do that?
Mean to's got nothing to do with it. A cannonade sire?
Newfoundlander, with these last few posts, you've pretty much outed yourself as a hardcore Liberal Party supporter. Did you mean to do that?
I could respond by being an idiot like you, but I won't.
I don't agree with the party's position on this issue, does that mean I can't support NDP policies?
Well, the "opportunism" thing doesn't sound like something someone who "supports NDP policies" would say.
It was also the fact that you seem to be offended by the NDP doing something that challenges the Newfoundland Liberals' status as Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.
Nonetheless, you have the right to hold whatever views you hold and to support whoever you choose to support.
Well, the "opportunism" thing doesn't sound like something someone who "supports NDP policies" would say.
It was also the fact that you seem to be offended by the NDP doing something that challenges the Newfoundland Liberals' status as Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.
Nonetheless, you have the right to hold whatever views you hold and to support whoever you choose to support.
I've been hoping that the Liberals would disappear in Newfoundland and Labrador because they are completely useless here. Unlike at the federal level our Progressive Conservatives represent the centre so there's no need to have a Liberal Party. I was hoping the NDP would become the Official Opposition, and they should have with their vote share, but they never and I think it's time to move on. There are more important issues in Newfoundland and Labrador then who the Official Opposition is, and just because they have one less seat doesn't mean the NDP cannot look like the Official Opposition.
There were at least two seats that were decided by special ballot, and every district had people vote by special ballot, but the NDP only want the results of one distict overthrown. Like I've stated fight to get the rules changed for 2015, but it's ridiculous to try and tell people who voted that their votes were useless and that they should vote again.
... but the NDP only want the results of one distict overthrown, but the NDP only want the results of one distict overthrown...
N_L, what is your evidence that the NDP still want the results of that district "overthrown"?
You are aware that the court has already dismissed Julie Mitchell's application for a recount, right?
Unless I'm missing something from scattered tweets and a media in Newfoundland and Labrador that never fails to underimpress, the issue of the results in Burin-Placentia West has been resolved.
... Like I've stated fight to get the rules changed for 2015, but it's ridiculous to try and tell people who voted that their votes were useless and that they should vote again.
"Fighting to get the rules changed for 2015" is exactly what the NDP is trying to do.
It would help if the PCs or Liberals got on board, but apprently they are too busy reaping what little political capital they can from catching Lorraine Michael in a "gotcha" moment.
As for telling people their votes are potentially useless, that is apparently a role already filled by Elections NL.
It says in this article that "The NDP has taken court action to have the election results for the District of Burin-Placentia West declared void. The NDP and Julie Mitchell are presenting the argument that the use of special ballots violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-12-08/article-2828860/Tories-say-Micheal%26rsquos-%26lsquoflip-flop%26rsquo-over-special-ballots-disturbing/1
Thanks N_L. In any case, there appear to be multiple issues, the most major of which is that the NDP is seeking a decision on the constitutionality of the special ballots, and I agree with them.
If the argument is also that -if- special ballots are unconstitutional, then the BPW results should be thrown out, that would necessarily have to be a separate issue for the court to deal with.
In other words, it's possible that the court could rule that the special ballots laws are unconstitutional, but that the BPW results still stay.
As it stands, CBC NL and all the other outlets do not seem to have posted a copy of the court application testing the constitutionality of the special ballots like they did with the first petition. So we can't see for ourselves what exactly the legal argument is that the NDP is making.