For Heaven's sake, leave it alone. Just because the Party failed to sell enough memberships in Quebec does not mean it has to change the rules. Trying to jigger it in some unfair way which pleases you will water down the votes of Party members in other parts of Canada and increase resentment against Quebec.
One Member, One Vote. Period.
To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".I would agree. I thought it was one member, one vote.
Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader.That "better" representation seems to be solely a function of their "more members".
If any region would like more representation, let them garner more members... yes? What's the obstacle here?
I'm just struggling to understand why any member's vote should be any more important than any other member's vote.
I am not arguing not to have one member one vote. I am saying it is not good for a party or the country when they have power to have these distortions.
This is not just the region it is both the party and region in this. Parties spend money to increase members more than even them out. I am not criticizing -- but I am saying when the distortions are unhealthy. It is hard to expect a party to put more effort in one place than another becuase it is getting less rewards and it is hard to expect a region to support a party that is less active.
I do not have a solution but I think it is fair to acknowledge that this is a problem.
Maybe a solution would be to give the major regions of Canada voting weight according to their population? So Quebec would represent 23% of the vote in a leadership election, Ontario 38%, the West 32%, the Atlantic region 7%, and the Territories 0.7%? Or maybe ensure that a region's voting weight does not fall below a certain percentage of their population? If a region's weight could not fall below half of their population size then Quebec would be guaranteed 11.5% weight, Ontario 19%, the West 16%, the Atlantic region 3.5%, and the Territories 0.4%?
I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented. Given their relatively large population size I think they should not fall below 11.5%.
I agree that they should not be this low. It is a terrible thing. The problem is that the cure of proportioning vote in Quebec at roughly 3x what it is in other places is also a truly terrible thing. It undermines the party position on electoral reform, it opens the party to takeover by a small number of people in an underrepresented part of the country, it increases total representation of a region without increasing the quality or representativeness of that representation, it damages the value of representation from other places.
The problem is that the number of members there is just too low. You cannot have this fixed either by either ignoring it and saying it is okay or by weighting votes. You have to fix it by putting a priority on growing membership there. We can have a discussion on how but there is no substitute for it.
In the short term, the party can ask members in the rest of the country to consider what this means and be more open to listening to the policies asks of Quebec and spending more efforts on campaigns to build in Quebec and paying attention to leadership choices that speak well to Quebec -- and that means not just in language. It perhaps could have included a greater number of events in Quebec and media efforts in the build up to this leadership race but I am not sure what these efforts have been and what level of priority was placed on this so it is impossible for me to criticize this definitively.
Covering a membership hole this big with weighting will not work and pretending it is not a huge problem will also not work. If the party is serious about wanting to govern, it has to have a strong convincing strategy to correct this and have that strategy not be a stand-alone thing but fully integrated in the functions of the party.
The next leader, whomever she or he is, ought to be judged in part by how this is addressed. There is no path to government that is credible for the NDP without Quebec and arguably the party cannot claim to be national with a gap as bad as it presently is. It cannot claim to deserve the electoral representation from Quebec if that is not matched by efforts to grow the membership there.
Blaming the province or the people for under representation in membership is also not a solution.
So we should dump the bandaids, recognize the problem, and move to correct the huge discrepancy.
The party has mused about a provincial party for a long time. Probably this cannot be put off further and sorry, QS does not have an exclusivity on Social Democratic voices in Quebec. Perhaps the previous Liberal strategy when having a non Quebec leader to have a high-profile Quebec lieutenant is not a bad idea with the specific purpose of getting the party to the point where that position is no longer required.
For Heaven's sake, leave it alone. Just because the Party failed to sell enough memberships in Quebec does not mean it has to change the rules. Trying to jigger it in some unfair way which pleases you will water down the votes of Party members in other parts of Canada and increase resentment against Quebec.
One Member, One Vote. Period.
Its already structured in an unfair way for Quebec. All the other provinces have a bigger member total than they otherwise would because their provincial party members are automatically federal members. This is not the case in Quebec because we don't have an provincial NDP that is affiliated with the federal party. If you want true fairness then separate the provincial and federal membership lists.
To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".I would agree. I thought it was one member, one vote.
Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader.That "better" representation seems to be solely a function of their "more members".
If any region would like more representation, let them garner more members... yes? What's the obstacle here?
I'm just struggling to understand why any member's vote should be any more important than any other member's vote.
I am not arguing not to have one member one vote. I am saying it is not good for a party or the country when they have power to have these distortions.
This is not just the region it is both the party and region in this. Parties spend money to increase members more than even them out. I am not criticizing -- but I am saying when the distortions are unhealthy. It is hard to expect a party to put more effort in one place than another becuase it is getting less rewards and it is hard to expect a region to support a party that is less active.
I do not have a solution but I think it is fair to acknowledge that this is a problem.
Maybe a solution would be to give the major regions of Canada voting weight according to their population? So Quebec would represent 23% of the vote in a leadership election, Ontario 38%, the West 32%, the Atlantic region 7%, and the Territories 0.7%? Or maybe ensure that a region's voting weight does not fall below a certain percentage of their population? If a region's weight could not fall below half of their population size then Quebec would be guaranteed 11.5% weight, Ontario 19%, the West 16%, the Atlantic region 3.5%, and the Territories 0.4%?
I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented. Given their relatively large population size I think they should not fall below 11.5%.
That would be a good solution. It's time for the NDP to get past the idea that the only areas that should have a real say in the leadership process are places where the party did well in 1972.
There were 13,000 or so members in quebec during the 2012 leadership race so signing up members there can be done. The Conservatives with those fake riding associations in Quebec are going nowhere. (this is the alternative to one member one vote). Odd though that this is the third one member one vote leadership race (plus there was one in BC and one in Ontario plus one in Nova Scotia I believe - can't recall what happened in alberta) and now concerns are raised about the 'process'. I wonder why....
I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented.
Don't citizens have to WANT to be represented?
I consistently vote NDP, but I haven't chosen to be a member -- so by definition, I'm "underrepresented".
What makes someone in Québec, who also hasn't chosen to be a member, somehow any different from me? We could both sign up if we want a say.
Conversely, if we don't sign up, why should anyone assume that we want or deserve a say?
Anyone feeling underrepresented can fix it quickly here:
https://action.ndp.ca/page/contribute/2017-membership-fr
and here's the English form:
Odd though that this is the third one member one vote leadership race (plus there was one in BC and one in Ontario plus one in Nova Scotia I believe - can't recall what happened in alberta) and now concerns are raised about the 'process'. I wonder why....
Maybe because within these single provinces you don't have a huge regional disconnect between NDP seat count and party membership, and you don't have a missing provincial party in one region that is crucial to electoral success?
I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented.Don't citizens have to WANT to be represented?
I consistently vote NDP, but I haven't chosen to be a member -- so by definition, I'm "underrepresented".
What makes someone in Québec, who also hasn't chosen to be a member, somehow any different from me? We could both sign up if we want a say.
Conversely, if we don't sign up, why should anyone assume that we want or deserve a say?
Anyone feeling underrepresented can fix it quickly here:
https://action.ndp.ca/page/contribute/2017-membership-fr
and here's the English form:
The Conservatives have votes per riding because if they didn't Alberta would always decide the leader. That would be fine if Alberta alone decided the federal election but they don't. For the party to have a chance to win the election the leader must be popular across the country not just in one province.
The NDP also needs to ensure its leader has broad support. If only 4% of voters for the leadership come from Quebec it's a problem because Quebec represents 23% or so of Canadians. The NDP needs Quebec.
Yesterday Jagmeet Singh has already declared unequivocally that he will win the NDP leadership race — “I will win,” he said in a recent Montreal debate — and spoke again Wednesday as if his victory were a foregone conclusion.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/20/ndps-jagmeet-singh-gets-k...
That's not unusual.
Almost all leadership candidates say they are going to win. They have to look confident and strong to inspire their followers.
It's rare for a leadersip candidate to say they are going to lose.
Almost all leadership candidates say they are going to win.
No they don't. It's very rare for leadership candidates for any party to say flatly "I will win".
The problem is that the number of members there [Quebec} is just too low. You cannot have this fixed either by either ignoring it and saying it is okay or by weighting votes. You have to fix it by putting a priority on growing membership there. We can have a discussion on how but there is no substitute for it.
Can't say for sure how to go about it, but I do know how not to go about it: by repeatedly threatening to create an NPD-Québec to run in the next Quebec provincial elecion, basically giving the middle finger to Quebec Solidaire members.
Maybe a solution would be to give the major regions of Canada voting weight according to their population? So Quebec would represent 23% of the vote in a leadership election, Ontario 38%, the West 32%, the Atlantic region 7%, and the Territories 0.7%? Or maybe ensure that a region's voting weight does not fall below a certain percentage of their population? If a region's weight could not fall below half of their population size then Quebec would be guaranteed 11.5% weight, Ontario 19%, the West 16%, the Atlantic region 3.5%, and the Territories 0.4%?
I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented. Given their relatively large population size I think they should not fall below 11.5%.
This is fascinating to consider, but I am on the side of OMOV. If a particular region is underrepresented at the moment (as Quebec clearly is) the work needs to be done on the ground to sign up more members. This work needs to be supported by the federal party (as Angus has been stressing), and by the sitting MP's. It's crazy that we've had such strong representation of elected MP's and yet it seems that NO work has been done on the ground to sign up the voters into party members. Is this a massive ball that Mulcair dropped during his tenure? I find it undemocratic that a member's vote would be worth more or less depending on where we live in the country (like now, if we were to give the small number of Quebec members a weighted 23% (or 11.5%) as you propose, when their actual voting numbers only amount to 4% of the nationwide party membership. I don't believe the answer is weighting those voters more highly than the rest of us, but to do the ground work to increase the party's membership in Quebec, or elsewhere where we might have weaker membership numbers.
The problem is that the number of members there [Quebec} is just too low. You cannot have this fixed either by either ignoring it and saying it is okay or by weighting votes. You have to fix it by putting a priority on growing membership there. We can have a discussion on how but there is no substitute for it.Can't say for sure how to go about it, but I do know how not to go about it: by repeatedly threatening to create an NPD-Québec to run in the next Quebec provincial elecion, basically giving the middle finger to Quebec Solidaire members.
Its not a threat, the NPD-Q exists and we're running a candidate in the Louis-Hebert by-election, we'll also be running candidates in the next provincial election. In any case a provincial party that most Quebeckers don't even know about is not the reason why NDP membership in Quebec has fallen and building a provincial presence for the party will not hurt the federal party, it'll help it.
The problem is that the number of members there [Quebec} is just too low. You cannot have this fixed either by either ignoring it and saying it is okay or by weighting votes. You have to fix it by putting a priority on growing membership there. We can have a discussion on how but there is no substitute for it.Can't say for sure how to go about it, but I do know how not to go about it: by repeatedly threatening to create an NPD-Québec to run in the next Quebec provincial elecion, basically giving the middle finger to Quebec Solidaire members.
Its not a threat, the NPD-Q exists and we're running a candidate in the Louis-Hebert by-election, we'll also be running candidates in the next provincial election. In any case a provincial party that most Quebeckers don't even know about is not the reason why NDP membership in Quebec has fallen and building a provincial presence for the party will not hurt the federal party, it'll help it.
Not only that but if Quebe Solidaire can speak to the needs of Quebec voters, then it will do very well at the ballot box regardless of anything the NPD-Quebec does or does not do.
Its not a threat, the NPD-Q exists and we're running a candidate in the Louis-Hebert by-election, we'll also be running candidates in the next provincial election. In any case a provincial party that most Quebeckers don't even know about is not the reason why NDP membership in Quebec has fallen and building a provincial presence for the party will not hurt the federal party, it'll help it.
I stand corrected on the existence of the NPD-Quebec. Which means that QS members actually cannot join the federal NDP without giving up their QS memberships. I suspect the NDP could get a portion of QS members to join if they did not have to give up their QS memberships, so yes I think it is contributing to the NDP's low membership numbers in Quebec.
Not only that but if Quebe Solidaire can speak to the needs of Quebec voters, then it will do very well at the ballot box regardless of anything the NPD-Quebec does or does not do.
I certainly hope so. It will be a real shame if the NPD-Quebec splits the vote with QS and allows other parties to win ridings that QS could otherwise win.
Not only that but if Quebe Solidaire can speak to the needs of Quebec voters, then it will do very well at the ballot box regardless of anything the NPD-Quebec does or does not do.I certainly hope so. It will be a real shame if the NPD-Quebec splits the vote with QS and allows other parties to win ridings that QS could otherwise win.
What's the hope? If there's a vote split it simply means that there are huge differences between the support bases of each party that they are having a difficult time reconciling. It happens.
I've never understood the anger and vitriol towards the idea of an NPD-Quebec section forming. If QS does a good job speaking to its constituency they will continue to receive that support no matter what the NPD does. If some of that support goes to the NPD, that means that they are doing a better job of speaking to some aspect of what people are seeking than QS.
Theory aside, now that there is a by-election as mentioned upthread, we'll have a chance to see how this is going to play out in the real world.
The problem is that the number of members there [Quebec} is just too low. You cannot have this fixed either by either ignoring it and saying it is okay or by weighting votes. You have to fix it by putting a priority on growing membership there. We can have a discussion on how but there is no substitute for it.Can't say for sure how to go about it, but I do know how not to go about it: by repeatedly threatening to create an NPD-Québec to run in the next Quebec provincial elecion, basically giving the middle finger to Quebec Solidaire members.
Hear, Hear!
Not only that but if Quebe Solidaire can speak to the needs of Quebec voters, then it will do very well at the ballot box regardless of anything the NPD-Quebec does or does not do.I certainly hope so. It will be a real shame if the NPD-Quebec splits the vote with QS and allows other parties to win ridings that QS could otherwise win.
What's the hope? If there's a vote split it simply means that there are huge differences between the support bases of each party that they are having a difficult time reconciling. It happens.
I've never understood the anger and vitriol towards the idea of an NPD-Quebec section forming. If QS does a good job speaking to its constituency they will continue to receive that support no matter what the NPD does. If some of that support goes to the NPD, that means that they are doing a better job of speaking to some aspect of what people are seeking than QS.
Theory aside, now that there is a by-election as mentioned upthread, we'll have a chance to see how this is going to play out in the real world.
The NPD-Q could have avoided any of the blowback if they'd agreed not to stand in any ridings held by QS or in ridings where it is obvious that QS has a chance to beat the PLQ, the PQ, or the CAQ.
The only ridings the NPD-Q should contest are those where there's actual evidence that a "progressive" federalist party could do better than QS could.
There could never be any legitimate reason for the NPD-Q ever to try to defeat sitting QS MNA's or to seek to wipe QS off the electoral map in Quebec. Only reactionaries could ever want THAT kind of result to happen, especially since it is certain that an NPD-Q program would be sharply to the right of QS.
I wish the right in Canada didn't care about vote-splitting and were still dividing their vote federally between Reform and the PC's. If those parties had split the vote in 2011, the NDP may have been able to form a government. But the right-wing powers that be in Canada play to win so they don't countenance vote splitting that prevents them from winning power. And in Alberta we are about to find out how the UCP will do. My guess is that the Alberta UCP will handily win the next election.
I agree, JKR.
It will be difficult for the NDP to win power federally against a united Conservative Party.
And I think you're correct that this is also the reason why the Wild Rose and the PC's decided to merge in Alberta.
The NPD-Q could have avoided any of the blowback if they'd agreed not to stand in any ridings held by QS or in ridings where it is obvious that QS has a chance to beat the PLQ, the PQ, or the CAQ.The only ridings the NPD-Q should contest are those where there's actual evidence that a "progressive" federalist party could do better than QS could.
There could never be any legitimate reason for the NPD-Q ever to try to defeat sitting QS MNA's or to seek to wipe QS off the electoral map in Quebec. Only reactionaries could ever want THAT kind of result to happen, especially since it is certain that an NPD-Q program would be sharply to the right of QS.
But that's the same basic principle behind asking the NDP not to run candidates against the Bloc, or Cullen's idea for the Liberals and NDP to have joint nominations. The NPD exists, and we will see how it does. If public support in Quebec is not there, the NPD will fizzle out and be just one more fad that people forgot. And if the QS MNAs are effective representatives for their communities, it won't matter what the NPD does. Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois recently crushed his opponents in the Gouin by-election to replace Francoise David, with the largest majority in the riding since at least 1966. He doesn't seem like someone who is in danger of being defeated any time soon.
I agree, JKR.It will be difficult for the NDP to win power federally against a united Conservative Party.
And I think you're correct that this is also the reason why the Wild Rose and the PC's decided to merge in Alberta.
Except that public opinion polling for at least the last year showed the Wild Rose clearly ahead of the NDP on its own, so why they needed to merge with the PCs to win the election is not clear. That the parties think they still need to join forces in order to stop the NDP I think speaks to some sort of fear beneath the surface. We're still a long ways out from the next provincial election, and while it doesn't look good right now, it seems that at least NDP support has stabilized, and the outcome of the next election is by no means a certain thing.
To put that in perspective, remember what public opinion polling this far out from the 2013 BC election and right throughout said about the BC Liberal's chances of being re-elected?
I agree it's too early to call the next Alberta election.
Campaigns matter, and if the Notley NDP runs a better campaign than the United Conservative Party, the NDP has the chance to win again.
But I think the merger between Wild Rose & PC's happened because it increases their odds even more, and I guess they wanted to have what they perceive to be a maximum advantage.
Under FPTP coalescing your vote behind fewer choices does not guarantee winning but it does maximize the chances of winning, especially over the longer term. I think the advent of the UCP has reduced the Alberta's chances of electoral success, especially over the longer term. I think the Alberta NDP government should have tried to get rid of FPTP when it had the chance.
I agree, JKR.It will be difficult for the NDP to win power federally against a united Conservative Party.
And I think you're correct that this is also the reason why the Wild Rose and the PC's decided to merge in Alberta.
Except that public opinion polling for at least the last year showed the Wild Rose clearly ahead of the NDP on its own, so why they needed to merge with the PCs to win the election is not clear. That the parties think they still need to join forces in order to stop the NDP I think speaks to some sort of fear beneath the surface. We're still a long ways out from the next provincial election, and while it doesn't look good right now, it seems that at least NDP support has stabilized, and the outcome of the next election is by no means a certain thing.
To put that in perspective, remember what public opinion polling this far out from the 2013 BC election and right throughout said about the BC Liberal's chances of being re-elected?
Wild Rose was never far ahead of the NDP. Now it looks like the UCP will win half the vote and under FPTP that would mean a huge UCP majority government versus a tiny opposition.
Under FPTP coalescing your vote behind fewer choices does not guarantee winning but it does maximize the chances of winning, especially over the longer term. I think the advent of the UCP has reduced the Alberta's chances of electoral success, especially over the longer term. I think the Alberta NDP government should have tried to get rid of FPTP when it had the chance.
That makes absolutely no sense. As pointed out upthread, pre-merger the Wildrose had been way ahead of the NDP, with the PCs having significant support. Even under a PR system, you still would have the Wildrose and the PCs combined with far more seats than the NDP. In practise there is no advantage for the NDP in that scenario, and it is the exact thing that's playing out now.
Wild Rose was never far ahead of the NDP.
Look at the numbers. The spread between the Wildrose and the NDP since 2015 has ranged from 5 points in the NDP's favour to 15 points in favour of Wildrose. If a 15-point spread does not constitue far ahead, I don't know what does.
Now it looks like the UCP will win half the vote and under FPTP that would mean a huge UCP majority government versus a tiny opposition.
Alberta is not having an election now. Alberta is having an election 2 years from now. Much can happen in that time frame.
Besides, if you are interested in eliminating FPTP to game the system for the left, remember that in 2011, the PCs and NDP in Manitoba had roughly equal popular support, and yet the PCs elected a small Opposition caucus as you said would happen in Alberta. Impliment PR and the size of the PC Caucus increases dramatically. Is that an outcome that is acceptable to you?
Under FPTP coalescing your vote behind fewer choices does not guarantee winning but it does maximize the chances of winning, especially over the longer term. I think the advent of the UCP has reduced the Alberta's chances of electoral success, especially over the longer term. I think the Alberta NDP government should have tried to get rid of FPTP when it had the chance.That makes absolutely no sense. As pointed out upthread, pre-merger the Wildrose had been way ahead of the NDP, with the PCs having significant support. Even under a PR system, you still would have the Wildrose and the PCs combined with far more seats than the NDP. In practise there is no advantage for the NDP in that scenario, and it is the exact thing that's playing out now.
Opinion polls are showing that the UCP have around 50% support. Under FPTP that translates into a huge majority. Under pr or irv it would mean a much tighter race. The Alberta NDP now depend on the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberal Party to both completely implode to even have a chance of winning.
Opinion polls are showing that the UCP have around 50% support. Under FPTP that translates into a huge majority. Under pr or irv it would mean a much tighter race. The Alberta NDP now depend on the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberal Party to both completely implode to even have a chance of winning.
You're still making no sense. The NDP right now are polling roughly 20 points behind the UCP. So under these numbers, whether done under PR, IVR, or FPTP the result would still leave the NDP with far fewer seats than UCP. On those numbers there is no scenario in which they have a close election. And if the UCP manage to win more than 50% support, they still win an outright majority of the seats and can govern as they please. And those numbers I posted upthread show the Alberta and Liberal parties each with single digit support, so I don't know how either one can implode any more than it already has.
Wild Rose was never far ahead of the NDP.Look at the numbers. The spread between the Wildrose and the NDP since 2015 has ranged from 5 points in the NDP's favour to 15 points in favour of Wildrose. If a 15-point spread does not constitue far ahead, I don't know what does.
Now it looks like the UCP will win half the vote and under FPTP that would mean a huge UCP majority government versus a tiny opposition.Alberta is not having an election now. Alberta is having an election 2 years from now. Much can happen in that time frame.
Besides, if you are interested in eliminating FPTP to game the system for the left, remember that in 2011, the PCs and NDP in Manitoba had roughly equal popular support, and yet the PCs elected a small Opposition caucus as you said would happen in Alberta. Impliment PR and the size of the PC Caucus increases dramatically. Is that an outcome that is acceptable to you?
Manitoba has is a two-party polity so FPTP works for the left there as there is little vote splitting in Manitoba.
Is FPTP vote splitting imaginary? If so the right has been merging parties in Canada for no reason. I think they are much shrewder than that.
Manitoba has is a two-party polity so FPTP works for the left there as there is little vote splitting in Manitoba.
So FPTP where it helps the left and get rid of FPTP when it hurts the left. Is that right?
Is FPTP vote splitting imaginary? If so the right has been merging parties in Canada for no reason. I think they are much shrewder than that.
Remember that in the case of Reform-PC that Reform was in large part created by the PC base in Western Canada. You can argue that it wasn't so much of a merger as a coming together of one party that had split in two.
Even that was not so simple. Mathematically the PC and Reform votes combined would have overtaken the Liberals in many areas. That did not happen in practice because there were many actual differences between the parties. In particular many PCs felt that Reform were scary social conservatives and did not support them for that reason. The 2004 election did not go as well for the Conservatives as was expected, in large part to many PC supporters backing other parties like the Liberals. And I don't remember the Conservative party splitting in 2 before they were thrown out of office in 2015.
Opinion polls are showing that the UCP have around 50% support. Under FPTP that translates into a huge majority. Under pr or irv it would mean a much tighter race. The Alberta NDP now depend on the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberal Party to both completely implode to even have a chance of winning.You're still making no sense. The NDP right now are polling roughly 20 points behind the UCP. So under these numbers, whether done under PR, IVR, or FPTP the result would still leave the NDP with far fewer seats than UCP. On those numbers there is no scenario in which they have a close election. And if the UCP manage to win more than 50% support, they still win an outright majority of the seats and can govern as they please. And those numbers I posted upthread show the Alberta and Liberal parties each with single digit support, so I don't know how either one can implode any more than it already has.
Before the merger Wild Rose was only ahead of the NDP by around a dozen points so the NDP still had a good chance of making the election close or even winning it. Now with the UCP ahead by around 20 points the NDP's chances have been reduced. Under PR the UCP would still not have an easy time getting a majority even with their current level of support. The Alberta Party and Liberal Party may be both in single digits but that could easily be enough vote-splitting to hurt the NDP's chances of forming another government.
So FPTP where it helps the left and get rid of FPTP when it hurts the left. Is that right?
I think the left should play to win government within FPTP and when in power they should change the electoral system. I admit that is problematic given that parties that win via FPTP are prone to wanting to keep it. But the current BC NDP government is attempting to have electoral reform. I think that's the way to go. Moreover, here in BC the growing strength of the Greens might make it very difficult for the BC NDP to win government again in the future. Under FPTP, the BC NDP will depend on the Greens becoming weaker in the future in order to keep the BC Liberals from having another dynasty. Under PR the BC NDP wouldn't depend on the Green's demise.
I stand corrected on the existence of the NPD-Quebec. Which means that QS members actually cannot join the federal NDP without giving up their QS memberships. I suspect the NDP could get a portion of QS members to join if they did not have to give up their QS memberships, so yes I think it is contributing to the NDP's low membership numbers in Quebec.
Currently that is not the case, NPD-Q and NDP federal membership lists aren't shared and you can be a member of both QS and the federal NDP. And personally I think that should be the case everywhere in the country. Let people choose what parties they support and don't support.
I used to be somewhat averse to vote splitting. And indeed, it does seem needless some times, when a party or candidate should know they have no chance of winning, but persist, and end up receiving votes that might have gone to someone who did have a chance.
But these days I guess my thinking is that you cannot be against vote splitting, but at the same time in favour of more electoral choice.
We hear over and over again how Canada only has three (or perhaps four) parties to choose from (in actual fact, many more than that) but if we add another choice, how is that not going to "split" the four-way choice into five? Or the five-way choice into six?
Electoral votes are a good example of a bone fide "zero sum game" -- there's only so many votes to go around, so each new choice is surely going to poach voters from the other choices. Is this not good any more?
The UCP argument is a good example of assumptions being dangerous.
It may increase the chance that the NDP lose -- by avoiding vote splitting but it also may increase the chance that the NDP win and here is why: If the Conservatives are in two parties and one irritates the public or has a scandal the other can make up the difference. If they are united and do the same the benefit could go to the NDP.
Trying to handicap the dynamics of an election at this distance really does not take account of all the possibilities. A slightly stronger NDP (improved with the economy perhaps) and a united party that might come off as arrogant and facing any kind of scandal might be exactly the perfect storm for the NDP to surprise by winning again.
And of course it coudl work out to the opposite or that a split Conservative party could allow the NDP a second win. We don't know yet.
Are most members still voting with a paper ballot or are members voting online?
My prediction is Singh getting 45-49% on the first ballot, and winning handedly in the second ballot.
FWIW I believe Singh will be mid 30s, Angus high 20s, Ashton and Caron high teens. Caron eliminated. Three ballots, Angus wins.
Though honestly, I have no idea. I think whatever they are, the results will be a surprise to many. (My happiest surprise would be Ashton wins, and second happiest, Caron, but I don't like my chances to be that happy.)
FWIW I believe Singh will be mid 30s, Angus high 20s, Ashton and Caron high teens. Caron eliminated. Three ballots, Angus wins.
Agree.
My prediction is Singh getting 45-49% on the first ballot, and winning handedly in the second ballot.
My guess is that he'll do even a little better than that and get over 50% on the first and last ballot.
What time are the results announced on Sunday?
Supposed to be at 2:30 eastern.
CBC coverage starts at 2:30 ET. And while I voted for Ashton and can see a narrow path to victory for her (Caron eliminated, she gets lots of his voters, squeaks past Angus, wins on 3rd ballot), at this point the only result that would truly surprise me would be a Caron victory.
1st Ballot Results Announcement // Toronto
Sunday, October 1st, 2:00pm - 3:30pm
Westin Harbour Castle, Metropolitan Ball Room
1 Harbour Square
NDP Pundit Tom Parkin was just on CP24 and said after Jack Layton the only thing Dippers are interested in is winning, which is why members are rallying around Jagmeet as the best person to knock off Trudeau.
NDP Pundit Tom Parkin was just on CP24 and said after Jack Layton the only thing Dippers are interested in is winning, which is why members are rallying around Jagmeet as the best person to knock off Trudeau.
You mean they weren't interest in winning last leadership election, after Jack Layton?
NDP Pundit Tom Parkin was just on CP24 and said after Jack Layton the only thing Dippers are interested in is winning, which is why members are rallying around Jagmeet as the best person to knock off Trudeau.
You mean they weren't interest in winning last leadership election, after Jack Layton?
No Dippers were, which is why they elected Mulcair. That according to Tom Parkin. Mulcair couldn't get the job done, so now the grassroots are setting their sights on Singh
Kind off topic, CBC claims that NDP is debt to 5 million. I could not confirm that number looking a Elections Canada site.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-democratic-party-leadership-results-....
But I confirm the following numbers, donations quarterly.
2017 June -- 826, 000
2017 March-- 909,000
2016 Dec-- 2,014,000
2016 Sept-- 973,000
2106 June-- 1,083,000
2016 Mar-- 1,351,000
2015 Dec-- 2,748,000
If Singh wins maybe he can trun things around in donations/contributions. That said Mr. Caron is my horse.
