Doug Ford, leader of the Ontario Conservatives

He won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote.   Where have I seen this before?  Hmm...

I thought we already had an Ontario forum, and in fact a recent active thread about Doug Ford there. Instead of littering the Canadian politics forum, why not ask Ken Burch to edit the title of his thread so we don't need to pretend that Ontario provincial politics matters more than everyone else's? I've done a random poll of neighbours, and so far, 0.00% have heard of Kathleen Wynne, Doug Ford, Andrea Horwath. I'd like to keep it that way.

Unionist wrote:

I thought we already had an Ontario forum, and in fact a recent active thread about Doug Ford there. Instead of littering the Canadian politics forum, why not ask Ken Burch to edit the title of his thread so we don't need to pretend that Ontario provincial politics matters more than everyone else's? I've done a random poll of neighbours, and so far, 0.00% have heard of Kathleen Wynne, Doug Ford, Andrea Horwath. I'd like to keep it that way.

I have complained already a couple times about thread drift. You’v raised a similar problem.  I agree that posters have to be more mindful because threads under the wrong categories and thread drift makes the site frustrating for the reader. I’m going to risk drifting to highlight the point!

And as a side point, 0.00% would indicate at least 10K people gave you an opinion on Ontario political players. Now I probably couldn’t come up with a single Quebec politician beyond the federal level, but neither can I recall any politicians name beyond the federal level anywhere outside Ontario. That doesn’t mean this is intentional, just means that I’m a human and not a computer. 

WWWTT wrote:

 

And as a side point, 0.00% would indicate at least 10K people gave you an opinion on Ontario political players. Now I probably couldn’t come up with a single Quebec politician beyond the federal level, but neither can I recall any politicians name beyond the federal level anywhere outside Ontario. That doesn’t mean this is intentional, just means that I’m a human and not a computer. 

Actually, that's unusual. Most people here could probably name at least 5 premiers outside their province and another 5 provincial politicians who are not premiers without any difficulty. I think the majority of Canadians could name at least two premiers outside their province and another 2 provincial politians. On top of that I think most could name a couple mayors as well.

If you watch politics and are interests in your own province, you are likely also watching to a lesser degree the rest of the country and by doing that would have more insight. If this is really true then you have a lot less to offer here than most.

Nothing about being human.

By the way, assuming you are in Ontario you might want to google the following ten names and get up to speed:

Notley, Horgan, Weaver, Couillard, Pallister, Kinew, Nenshi, Gregor Robertson, Valérie Plante, Stephen McNeil.

Once done you could learn about ten more. Seriously, that would help you in terms of your conversations here if you know who these people are.

Pondering wrote:

The social part is immaterial as no political party will genuinely represent them and most have figured that out. 

But Ontario is hardly immune from factors that have powered populists elsewhere. There are plenty of towns where traditional jobs in manufacturing or otherwise have dried up, and there is angst about a perceived shrinking of the middle class and the cost of living, and there are many people who believe that urban liberals are imposing their values – in the form of everything from wind turbines to sex-education curriculum – on everyone else.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/with-doug-fords-victory-a-...

The right provides an enemy, the left does not. The right wins. 

Not new.  Mike Harris was in for 8 years.

WWWTT wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I thought we already had an Ontario forum, and in fact a recent active thread about Doug Ford there. Instead of littering the Canadian politics forum, why not ask Ken Burch to edit the title of his thread so we don't need to pretend that Ontario provincial politics matters more than everyone else's? I've done a random poll of neighbours, and so far, 0.00% have heard of Kathleen Wynne, Doug Ford, Andrea Horwath. I'd like to keep it that way.

And as a side point, 0.00% would indicate at least 10K people gave you an opinion on Ontario political players.

Quite right, my bad. I should have said, 0.0000%. Rounded up to the nearest 1/1,000,000.

Unionist wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I thought we already had an Ontario forum, and in fact a recent active thread about Doug Ford there. Instead of littering the Canadian politics forum, why not ask Ken Burch to edit the title of his thread so we don't need to pretend that Ontario provincial politics matters more than everyone else's? I've done a random poll of neighbours, and so far, 0.00% have heard of Kathleen Wynne, Doug Ford, Andrea Horwath. I'd like to keep it that way.

And as a side point, 0.00% would indicate at least 10K people gave you an opinion on Ontario political players.

Quite right, my bad. I should have said, 0.0000%. Rounded up to the nearest 1/1,000,000.

So you are saying 100% of your neighbours are ignorant? Considering Ontario is our largest province, this election is news to all Canadians. 

Martin N. wrote:

So you are saying 100% of your neighbours are ignorant? Considering Ontario is our largest province, this election is news to all Canadians. 

Not at all. I'm saying they are informed, intelligent, progressive individuals, members of the nation of Québec, who have long since learned how to pay attention to what's important - and that does most definitely not include some pathetic phoney rivalry between largely indistinguishable flunkeys who happily exchange, abandon, and copy each other's policies once they come to power.

And if you bothered to read what I'm saying (rather than reading your own mind), you'll note that I asked that this conversation not be duplicated, and not be misplace in the "Canadian politics" forum.

As for Ontario being the "largest province", who precisely cares? Name me some of the up and coming political figures in China (which is the world's largest country), and let's discuss that in the Canadian Politics forum.

Or perhaps, explain to me the effect that Kathleen Wynne's last term in office has had on Canada. And on Québec. That should be interesting.

Waiting....

Excuse me for misunderstanding that the 'Canadian politics' forum is for, well.... Canadian politics. Discussing the relative merits of Chinese political figures in the Canadian politics forum never occured to me.

On the other hand, considering how much the nation of Quebec depends on the rest of Canada and versy-vicey, I will assume your neighbourhood is an outlier rather than representative of Quebec opinion.

So Elliott not only won more votes but she won more ridings.

Ihttps://mobile.twitter.com/CBCQueensPark/status/972907486880587776

https://mobile.twitter.com/EricGrenierCBC/status/972917106416156677

Quote:

So Elliott not only won more votes but she won more ridings.

Here's a very brief explanation of PC electoral policy.

Basically, one member's leadership vote in a small riding (e.g. a riding with 90 members) can be worth as much as 100 other member's votes (in a riding with 10,000 members).

The advantage goes to rural (small) ridings. 

voice of the damned wrote:

cco wrote:

josh wrote:

Not new.  Mike Harris was in for 8 years.

And, lest we forget, Harper (and his right-wing populist Reform party) were in power for 10. And that's not even mentioning Social Credit. Right-wing populism isn't some newcomer to Canada, forcing its way in from Europe and America, enabled by those sneaky left-wingers pushing proportional representation. It's as home-grown a phenomenon as it gets.

Well, technically, most of the ideas preached by the populist right originated outside of Canada, eg. Social Credit started in the UK(though never attained power there), and the Klein Revolution took its direct inspiration from the New Zealand Labour Party

Social democracy started outside of Canada as well.

Quote:

Reactionary voting system for a reactionary party.

Well, the irony, IMHO, is that the regionality component of their riding/points system was probably an attempt to ensure that leadership elections weren't biased in favour of large ridings, but it ended up biasing it in favour of smaller ones (not "the ridings" themselves -- they're all equal, which is the problem -- but the members in them).

Quote:

I guess OMOV would be too simple, and too democratic.

Fair enough.  But didn't I hear a wee bit of grousing after Jagmeet Singh won, purportedly because under OMOV, all he had to do was stack one or two ridings with busloads of supporters, and thereby screw over NDP members in rural Mantioba, or whatever? 

I'm not averse to OMOV, but it does mean dispensing with regionality.  Either all regions can be equals, or all voters can.

Ken Burch wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

cco wrote:

josh wrote:

Not new.  Mike Harris was in for 8 years.

And, lest we forget, Harper (and his right-wing populist Reform party) were in power for 10. And that's not even mentioning Social Credit. Right-wing populism isn't some newcomer to Canada, forcing its way in from Europe and America, enabled by those sneaky left-wingers pushing proportional representation. It's as home-grown a phenomenon as it gets.

Well, technically, most of the ideas preached by the populist right originated outside of Canada, eg. Social Credit started in the UK(though never attained power there), and the Klein Revolution took its direct inspiration from the New Zealand Labour Party

Social democracy started outside of Canada as well.

Yeah, I was actually gonna mention that, save for a lack of time. Both the ideologies we dislike, as well as the ones we like, by and large came from outside Canada.

OMOV is the fairest, and most democratic, in my view regardless of the circumstances.

JKR wrote:

The complicated system the PC's used is open to fraud if a candidate can fraudulently "move" their supporters to less populated ridings. Maybe just digitally switching some postal codes could game their system? I think someone in Elliot's team stated that approximately 9,000 voters were counted in the wrong riding.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. If Ford could have 10,000 of his supporters in Toronto join the party as residents of Strathroy, Paris, Wiarton, and other small towns, he could game the system.

I think the problem is not in representing the wishes of the membership at any one point - OMOV wins.  The question comes from membership demographics over time and the relation of membership to like minded Canadians. 

Ridings at the top of their game have a bunch of things going for them.  Active outreach, full coffers, regular meetings, active policy activities.  They attract lots of members. Success breeding success. When I was growing up it was the Nanaimo NDP that was the model, tons of members, lots of active membership growth. Just guessing that a Pareto calculation of where the ratio of federal ridings holding the most members is the converse of the ratio of ridings holding the least members would be somewhere around 15%:85%. Meaning that 85% of the members would be found in the top 15% of ridings.  

You can make a bunch of generalizations of these top ridings.  First and foremost they are succeeding in the current political environment.  Secondly, they have a larger representation of supporters and possible supportera. So, if you go with pure OMOV you are giving strong representation to ridings that see success in the status quo.  Secondly, you are giving a disproportionate level of say to these ridings as they have a disproportionate amount of like minded citizens signed up as members. I would bet an analysis across parties would show also that urban ridings have a larger proportion of political party memberships.

I am not for one riding one vote, but I do think that if we want to embrace new ideas, and truly represent the views of like minded Canadians we need to put some balance into the system.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

So Elliott not only won more votes but she won more ridings.

Here's a very brief explanation of PC electoral policy.

Basically, one member's leadership vote in a small riding (e.g. a riding with 90 members) can be worth as much as 100 other member's votes (in a riding with 10,000 members).

The advantage goes to rural (small) ridings. 

not exactly like the US system. Article is actually misleading. Before the expansion of 30 seats in the lower house, several ridings in Ontario were compared to those in PEI. Brampton west case in point. The riding of Brampton west at the time had the same population as PEI but PEI has 4 ridings. So in other words there are areas of Canada that have more representation and some that have less. 

Also if I remember correctly, several in the NDP that were throwing the idea of a similar system around after Jag won with new memberships mostly from Brampton 

thanks for the link mr Magoo 

The regional debate between one member one vote and a regional parity is not as cut and dried in my opinion. I could argue for either.

The argument for one-member one vote works well when all voters can participate. The general election version is PR.

The problem with OMOV is that there is more than one interest at stake. In fact there are three: Members, the party itself, supporters who are not members, and the citizens of the country.

In theorey: If the interests of the regions are balanced rather than weighted by having more voting members in one than the another, the party gains by having a leader accepted in more areas of the country (or province). The members are taken not as owners of the party outright but as representatives of the larger community that might elect the party. The government that they are voting to stand for belongs to the entire jurisdiction and so over representation in one area to the exclusion of another is not a fair proposition. This representative of the regions approach also may be in the interst of the party which presumably would have more chance s to win if the support comes from a wider base in seats than merely a stacked over representation in one area.

To continue this logic, it is also possible to imagine all three parties over represented in one geographic central area. This is especially true of the more remote areas where participation might be more difficult. If all parties elected leaders with biased regional bases other areas would not be well represented.

Now I do not agree with the regional basis I described. I do, however respect it and accept it as a viable philosophy and a well-meaning one.

What I believe is far, far more difficult for a party and a greater responsibility. I think such votes should be OMOV -- but that the party has a serious responsibility to make its memberships more proportional among the regions. This is an almost impossibility but with effort some strides can be made. Regions that are under-represented need to be identified. They need considerable outreach  -- even considerable  door knocking drives and work talking to people on the ground to increase the membership there. Even membership fees might need to be adjusted if needed (although they are very affordable in the NDP). I think the party has to take fairly extreme measure to increase the membership in underepresented regions. I do not think that equalization among ridings is feasible but it can be partly achieved in regional groupings of ridings (North, East, GTA, South West etc.).

I think we cannot say that it is entirely reasonable for OMOV if the vote is extremely biased to one region. It is also not reasonable to not have OMOV. So the solution has to be to address the balances. At least every effort possible.

Yes this is a considerable weighting of party recruitement and growth efforts. It is also true that the areas disadvantaged  in the growth campaign would benefit from their regions political choice being more electable due to this effort.

So in my opinion, the problem is not in the compromise -- regional or omov but in the lopsidded balance that a party has to do everything possible to address.

Let me say as problematic as the Conservative regional vote may be, and as much as I disagree with it, I respect its intention to make the result regionally inclusive. I also respect, and support the OMOV model of the NDP. But I think the party has considerable responsibility to grow the party proportionately as much as possible. Not to do so creates a hinterland in and poor representation for some areas and a central power base in others.

NDPP wrote:

'I believe in letting the market dictate' (audio - interview)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pc-leader-doug-ford-cannabis-ottawa...

"Newly elected PC Leader Doug Ford says he'll cut taxes and repeal Ontario's sex education curriculum, and is open to a hands-off approach to cannabis once it's legalized. 'I don't believe in the government sticking their hands in our lives all the time. I believe in letting the market decide,' he told CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning on Tuesday."

 

 

He's very experienced in this matter.

This is bad bad news for the ONDP.   I think he will be premier, probably with a majority.   Many previous NDP voters in the suburbs and the northern Ontario ridings will flip to the PCs.   Urban NDP voters, particularly women NDP voters will flip back to the Liberals in the downtown core out of fear and revulsion.   And there are 25 new ridings this election, most in the suburbs and rural Ontario now in play, and they may mostly be Ford Country already.

He will also be teflon when it comes to traditional Liberal attack politics.  I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think he is immune to another #Metoo moment, given the fatigue and outrage over Patrick Brown's situation, and his past is already known and to much of his base, it's endearing, and shows he's "one of them", prone to youthful mistakes and indescretions.   The opening of the cannabis market will be a hugely successful issue for him.