babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
As I said before, a pre-election alliance is interesting in theory, but in practice would be an option for the NDP in only seven ridings:
Ottawa-Orleans (where PSAC endorsed Liberal David Bertschi last May), Ajax-Pickering (this may explain why Mark Holland is supporting PR, he might in theory pull this off), Don Valley West (where the NDP ran an invisible place-holder last May and the Conservative won by 611 votes, were we already doing an informal alliance?), Eglinton-Lawrence, Etobicoke Centre, Mississauga South, and Yukon (unlikely). That's it. If the Liberals stood down in six or seven as well, would that be revolutionary? But first the Liberals would have to support proportional representation, which only a minority of them do today.
I'm with Wilf on this one and agree with what he said above. ALL OF IT.
I'm going to respond to Michael's suggestions now:
1. A central plank of the coalition platform should be to bring in P.R. during the first term, so that the common candidate stratagem would only be necessary for one election. NOT INFORCEABLE
2. The common candidates chosen could be individuals who have not been active members of any political party, but who are well known and respected in their communities. Thus none of the party cadres would have to feel that they were being forced to vote for "the enemy". SORRY BUT THEY'D HAVE TO INSPIRE SOMEONE
3. The common candidates could agree beforehand to only run once. Thus, there would be no fear of long term effects on the balance between the cooperating parties. ha ha ha - too many in real time examples to dispute that people change their mind - eg. Rae, many newly minted Con senators!
I really think something like this could work. Too bad it seems very unlikely to happen. I don't see this as workable and the political damage far outweights the gain - which is Wilf pointed out about is 7 SEATS, that's it 7 SEATS!
Well, seven if we pick up the seven where the Liberals might stand down. And seven the other way around. Makes 14 less Conservatives. Might tip the balance. But pretty hypothetical at this stage.
And that's on the old boundaries. When we have the new boundaries, and Elections Canada calculates the transposition of votes, there might be another few where the NDP would have no hope and could stand down, and maybe four more the other way in BC. Cullen's plan makes the most sense in BC.
But at this point, I think the best stance is to say "we aren't slamming the door on co-operation. We even tried to make Dion Prime Minister, and Ignatieff spent the last campaign bragging that he turned us down. The public wants parties to work together, and we've always been willing to do that. Let's wait and see if the Liberals are really interested." That's actually what the majority voted in Vancouver in June. Cullen's campaign has not been clear enough on this, although I think they're trying.
Good! So you agree with this part:
So do I. I'd like to find a way to Stop Harper. What do you think of cooperation at the riding level to do that?
Er, by the way, contrary to Wilf's "7 riding" theory, people don't always vote the same way in 2015 as they do in 2011, nor in 2011 the way they do in 2008. When something happens to inspire them, they may radically and overwhelmingly change their minds. Have a look at what swept Québec on May 2. Now imagine if we invite people to forget about "my party right or wrong" for one moment and cooperate at the local riding level - among people who know each other, who work and live and go to school together - for an important cause, the cause of stopping the dismantling of Canada. You might find that such a movement could baffle the number crunchers and produce interesting results in 70 ridings, not 7.
nay Unionist and I liked Wilf's 2nd last post here. I'm just not interested.
No doubt, but the core of Cullen's plan is, the local riding association decides. I found six ridings in Ontario where I can see that as possible. And even some of them might say, as Unionist just said, that people will vote differently in 2015, and therefore they insist on running an NDP candidate. Certainly Mulcair has repeatedly made the point that, if Cullen's plan had been in effect in the last election, the majority of our Quebec caucus would not even have run.
Cullen's plan makes the most sense in BC. In return for the NDP agreeing to ask its ridings to consider the plan, BC Liberal ridings would also consider it; and that could result in a single candidate (NDP) winning the following ridings if we were still on the present boundaries: Nanaimo-Alberni, Vancouver Island North, and maybe Fleetwood-Port Kells; with a shot at Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, Kootenay-Columbia and Okanagan-Coquihalla, and maybe even Cariboo-Prince George, Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission and Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam. On the new boundaries, several more.
One problem is, voters don`t watch closely enough. If they hear the Liberals and NDP are co-operating, they may switch their vote the wrong way where both parties are running.
It`s all premature until the Liberals express willingness to co-operate on terms that include proportional representation. I`m just making two points:
1. Not slamming the door on the Liberals is a good stance.
2. If we were to actually do it, there are few ridings where the local NDP would ever stand down.
Oh, I think I disagree with that.
Why should this strategy depend on whether or not the Liberals are interested?
I never really understood the detail of Cullen's approach, but maybe we should fill them in ourselves.
Forget about the Liberal Party - go after the Liberals. And Greens. And Bloquistes. And others too, why not. Reach out locally. If there's agreement on a candidate, run her for her party - if her party says "no" to this process, then run her as an anti-Harper Independent. Lots of room for refinement of this approach, no?
A particularly contentious riding where the NDP could conceivably be asked if they'd stand down would be Vancouver South (or whatever remains of it). The NDP riding association there, I've heard, is fiercely anti-Liberal. But the idea of jointly nominating someone who is not resolutely tied to either the Liberal or NDP could well be a strategy that wins over the association. I'd suggest George Chow if it weren't for the fact that he's already on their sh!tlist for having supported Dosanjh instead of Meena Wong federally before trying to mount a bid to run for the BCNDP in Vancouver-Fraserview. But maybe someone else on the Vision team (remember there will be another civic election in 2014, so an incumbent could retire).
The spirit of the policy is against electing someone who says they belong to one party and then later goes behind the voter's backs to join the NDP caucus.
If the candidate wins the joint nomination when it's known that they'll sit with the NDP, and says during the election "I have been jointly nominated, and the ballot will reflect this fact, but I am disclosing that I will sit with the NDP caucus", then there is really no deception at all.
So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?
Further questions arise: Why would Liberals and Greens vote for such a candidate?
What happens if the Liberals get more seats than the NDP - would the "Independent" MP sit with the Liberals if the NDP and Liberals don't form a coalition government?
Mulcair is wrong about this. Cullen's plan only involves ridings where the Conservatives are the incumbant and the NDP, Liberals or Greens are in a strong 2nd place position. The 2008 election only saw the Conservatives win 10 seats in Quebec and only 1 of those 10 seats, Pontiac, had a party other than the BQ in 2nd place. In this case the Liberals came a distant second place to the Conservatives. Since more of the 2008 NDP vote in Pontiac would likely go to the BQ instead of the Liberals, and the Liberals were a distant 2nd in Pontiac, Cullen's plan would not have even been applicable in Pontiac.
Under Cullen's plan, the 2011 election would have saw the NDP run 75 candidates in all of Quebec's 75 ridings.
Local activists of various parties may agree to support the candidate on that condition. There should be flexibility in form. We would want to encourage an anti-Harper alliance, not raise partisan obstacles to one.
So as not to split the anti-Harper vote, obviously. They would vote for such a candidate because active local people of all parties have determined that that's their best opportunity to defeat the Conservative. There are many people out there who want to defeat Harper, but the FPTP system and the multiplicity of parties doesn't facilitate that. That's the whole idea between such pre-election accords. What's the mystery here??
You mean if Harper wins the most seats in a minority situation? Then all pressure must be put on the other parties to form a coalition. If they don't form a coalition, who cares whom the Independent "sits with"? Seating arrangements on the deck of the Titanic? What's your point? This is about Stopping Harper, and we need to do what Brigette DePape declared, which is to find every creative means to accomplish that.
Join 7,609 Canadians: “I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform.
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation
They may well mean "proportional representation" when they say "electoral reform." But some Liberals signing the petition may think they mean "any reform, including the Preferential Ballot." I'm not signing it until this is clarified.
On what condition - that he or she runs as an "Independent" committed to joining the NDP caucus? Why wouldn't the local activists of various parties just save everyone the trouble and vote NDP, if "not splitting the anti-Harper vote" is so important to them?
My questions were directed to theleftyinvestor, whose absurd proposal prompted them, not at you. Don't try to pretend my questions came out of nowhere.
Same reason that in Vancouver, Vision Vancouver(Liberal/NDP/Green) was re-elected rather than COPE(NDP) or the Green Party of Vancouver. If you want an electoral coalition to work, you tone the partisanship down, and you run on what unites you. Not everyone is excited by the concept of an NDP Majority, even if it boots out the Conservatives.
CFL