Electoral reform likelihood increases with 2019 election results

no electoral reform because CPC will side with Liberals on no.

Well, if the Libs were to bring forward MMP legislation, I don't have any doubt it would get unanimous support from the NDP and Greens, making an easy majority. So it wouldn't really matter what the CPC or BQ said or did.

Perhaps the Conservatives will look more kindly on electoral reform now that FPTP has saved the Liberals' bacon.

I do not see this election helping the cause of PR. It is mostly a reward for breaking that promise.

I also see tha tthis campaign may serve to divert the need for electoral reform to party finance reform. The election illustrated the need for both but rewarded those on the wrong side of the equation.

nicky wrote:

In the final stretch the NDP and the Greens each lost 2 or 3 points because their voters were scared of electing Scheer.

Or was it because their support was concentrated in an age demographic that didn't vote in high enough numbers.

The Lies Canadian Voters Tell Themselves At Election Time

https://twitter.com/FairVoteCanada/status/1186850525477658624

"In any given riding, depending on the vote split, an estimated 45% to 65% of ballots are of no direct consequence. But with plurality voting, many needn't bother. They don't end up contributing to the election of anyone..."

Never is a long time.

or

never say never?

bekayne wrote:

nicky wrote:

In the final stretch the NDP and the Greens each lost 2 or 3 points because their voters were scared of electing Scheer.

Or was it because their support was concentrated in an age demographic that didn't vote in high enough numbers.

Probably both and probably dependent on where you were.

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Why would the Liberals want electoral reform. This is the results of one election. Were it not for Bill 21 the Liberals would probably have a majority. The future looks bright and shiny for the Liberals. The Conservatives are still in climate change denial and weakened by reformers being incontrol of the party and people are still hesitant to vote NDP. 

I'm sure the Liberals are planning for a majority next time around and they will do their best to time the next election just right. 

I'm also pretty sure the Liberals are planning for a phoney FPTP "majority" in the next election too. What party wouldn't want to get over half the seats with little more than a third of the vote? 

It's hard to believe but polls have shown that almost half of Canadians believe a "majority" government has received over half of the votes. In a way that makes sense since "majority" sounds like it means "over half."

Sorry to say but I think the Liberals will believe propaganda about Justin following Pierre.

In my opinion he is not on the same track and the Liberals will be blown out in the next election unless they do something truly good. I do not know if Trudeau is capable of that. I would say a real gesture of reconciliation to Alberta and Sask is needed demonstrating that we are collectively in this together. Something like buy company who builds electric buses and move it to Calgary.

It's clear that the Liberals will win another majority government in the next 18- 24 months from now.

They will have to work with the NDP and Greens to establish more progressive policies and can work with the Bloc by listening to the needs of Quebec.

The Conservatives asre the ones dividing our country as they do in any country around the world. Threy campaigned like the Republicans and would obviously govern like Republicans if elected.

They attack because they have absolutely nothing to offer (unless you're a business owner or a millionaire) They know their policies are massively unpopular so they campaign really dirty. And everyone I have talked to were reeally turned off by that, even some who do not support the Libs.

Canada won this election. And Canada will hand over the Libs a strong majority as long as theyt can keep and pick up support in Quebec and Ontario. The Prairies? Sorry guys, you'rte not needed. And the Liberals should have never bought that pipeline. They did it for Alberta and to put an end to Alberta throwing threats out at BC.

Saskatchewan and Alberta want MORE pipelines and the carbon tax to be abolished. Fuck you. Ignore the Prairies and work on Ontario and Quebec because those are the 2 provinces where the vote matters and will lead the Liberals to another majority next election.They don't need the Prairies.

If the Conservatives have a problem with it, the Prairies can seperate and join the US. And all those rednecked rubes in Central Canada can live their right wing Eutopia. Maybe set up massive statues ofd St. Preston ands St. Stephen. Problem solved.

How lovely to be blessed with a right-extremist fascist on our discussion board! We're inclusive.

JKR wrote:

It's hard to believe but polls have shown that almost half of Canadians believe a "majority" government has received over half of the votes. In a way that makes sense since "majority" sounds like it means "over half."

Trick question intended to prove Canadians really want PR they just don't know it. Ask Canadians if they think the party that wins the most seats should win. Ask Canadians if they are okay with parties being forced to form coalitions to govern. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry to say but I think the Liberals will believe propaganda about Justin following Pierre.

In my opinion he is not on the same track and the Liberals will be blown out in the next election unless they do something truly good. I do not know if Trudeau is capable of that. I would say a real gesture of reconciliation to Alberta and Sask is needed demonstrating that we are collectively in this together. Something like buy company who builds electric buses and move it to Calgary.

Nothing but a pipeline and canceling equalization payments will satisfy them.  Equalization payments do not entitle provinces that are better off to anything. They are a responsibility of membership in the confederation of Canada as agreed to by all members including Alberta. 

Canada hasn't given anything to Quebec beyond powers within Quebec's borders. Alberta wants the right to force pipelines through other provinces. Nothing else will pacify them and they may never get one. Cases are still before the courts and resistence isn't fading. 

The word to Quebec now is "if you want to go, go ahead' and the same must be said to Alberta. The only value Alberta seems to place on Canada is as a conduit for pipelines. Let them have a referendum or two to settle it as Quebec did. 

Of course Karl Nerenberg has an insightful article which discusses exactly this subject:

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2019/10/trudeau-should-now-work-ndp-and-greens...

alan smithee wrote:

It's clear that the Liberals will win another majority government in the next 18- 24 months from now.

They will have to work with the NDP and Greens to establish more progressive policies and can work with the Bloc by listening to the needs of Quebec.

The Conservatives asre the ones dividing our country as they do in any country around the world. Threy campaigned like the Republicans and would obviously govern like Republicans if elected.

They attack because they have absolutely nothing to offer (unless you're a business owner or a millionaire) They know their policies are massively unpopular so they campaign really dirty. And everyone I have talked to were reeally turned off by that, even some who do not support the Libs.

Canada won this election. And Canada will hand over the Libs a strong majority as long as theyt can keep and pick up support in Quebec and Ontario. The Prairies? Sorry guys, you'rte not needed. And the Liberals should have never bought that pipeline. They did it for Alberta and to put an end to Alberta throwing threats out at BC.

Saskatchewan and Alberta want MORE pipelines and the carbon tax to be abolished. Fuck you. Ignore the Prairies and work on Ontario and Quebec because those are the 2 provinces where the vote matters and will lead the Liberals to another majority next election.They don't need the Prairies.

If the Conservatives have a problem with it, the Prairies can seperate and join the US. And all those rednecked rubes in Central Canada can live their right wing Eutopia. Maybe set up massive statues ofd St. Preston ands St. Stephen. Problem solved.

No, it is not at all clear that the Liberals will win. In fact I think they will not. The CPC will likely not have to worry about the PPC and will likely put up a leader more effective than the one they already ran. You would think that losing the popular vote and a majority would indicate that there is nothing clear about the idea of a Liberal win next time.

No, the Conservatives do not have to work with anyone. They may choose to do so. They need to make sure that there are not more votes against them than fo them on confidence votes. They can make deals for this with parties on an ongoing or case-by-case basis or simply dare parties that may not want an election to bring them down knowing they will probably not. The PM was clear today that TMX pipeline was going ahead. Looks like they will get the votes from the CPC for that. I imagine they will get votes from other parties like the Greens and NDP on policies those parties want or do not want to oppose.

No, a divided country is not only the fault of one side. There are a lot of things that are the responsibility of parties other than the Conservatives. to say that the party in power for the last 4 years has nothing to do with why the country is divided is arrogant and nonsensical.

Saying to any part of the country that they are not needed is not productive. Alberta is not going to leave at this point but that is not the present risk. Parts of the country are not united and this will cause a problem without them leaving in terms of lack of cooperation and obstruction as you would expect. The Conservatives got more votes than the Liberals. Theya re not the government but bullying them is a sure way to lose to them in a few months.

Pondering wrote:

Ask Canadians if they think the party that wins the most seats should win. Ask Canadians if they are okay with parties being forced to form coalitions to govern. 

These seem like nonsensical questions to ask Canadians or anyone else. Who thinks parties should be forced to form coalitions to govern? Why should a party that wins the most seats "win" if it can't obtain support from the majority of seats? 

Thanks

There is a lot of misunderstanding about equalization payments. Western Canada is not against equalization payments. Western Canadian provinces like Alberts and Saskatchewan in particular have issues with the equalization formula. Quebec makes massive amounts of revenue with Quebec Hydro. This should be included in the determination of who receives equalization payments. Quebec is a wealthy province and they are taking money away from poorer provinces that need and deserve the money more.

And to all the hostile and ignorant easterners, if western Canada separates, your welfare cheques from us would cease.

ha ha ha

The NDP will have to pick its priorities carefully and make sure the issues are going to be seen as worth it. Forget election reform or stopping the pipeline.

I agree with a lot of your posts but this makes no sense.  The NDP has no obligation to prop the Liberals up on issues they don't agree with.  The NDP should be loud about proportional representation as a way to alleviate regional tensions.  The NDP should stand up against pipelines as half of their MPs come from ridings where that is a huge issue. Not to mention it highlights the fact the Liberals are insincere on climate change and improving relations with First Nations.

You have mentioned the importance of fundraising but the biggest impediment to the NDP's fundraising is that the party seems to care less about the principles of their base than short-term political positioning. Why would low income Canadians donate to a party that will jettison the issues they care about whenever the leadership decides they aren't politically expedient?  To the point that under Layton, NDP supporters were supposed to suddenly love mandatory minimums and under Mulclair, balanced budgets and austerity. If the NDP wants to fix their fundraising, they might look at this.

I thought Singh did a pretty good job with messaging during the campaign but even he slipped a few times.  Take for example Dental care. He comes out very principled in the first debate about univerrsal public dental care.  May attacks him on the cost of the program and argues for limiting it to low-income households but he stands his ground. I was watching with Green supporters and we all agree he does a good job. We talk about universality as a principle and why it is a good idea with healthcare/dental care.  Then a week or two later, suddenly it's dental care for households who make under $70,000, discarding the principle of universality which makes our healthcare so robust.  So not only does the NDP suddenly support a weaker  position but the people who were agreeing with them during the debate are abruptly abandoned and wondering whether the NDP means anything they say. 

If you look at the Bernie Sanders campaign, they are breaking records with raising small donations but it isn't just because they know how to use 'social media'. It's because people trust him and the people that have surrounded him to stand by their principles and fight for them.  The NDP for good reason does not have that kind of credibility and they won't get it back by weakly abandoning the issues that it campaigned on.

The Liberals aren't going to trigger an election on keeping FPTP or ramming through pipelines either.  To be honest either of those would be the ideal hill for the Liberal government to die on from an NDP perspective. The NDP does not need to be weak on these issues because they are weaknesses for the Liberals. 

It would be better for the NDP to be clear about its vision and principles. If the Liberals want to get progressive things done, they can come to the NDP. Otherwise they can ram through pipelines with the Conservatives.

Areistotleded24 wrote:

Misfit wrote:

There is a lot of misunderstanding about equalization payments. Western Canada is not against equalization payments. Western Canadian provinces like Alberts and Saskatchewan in particular have issues with the equalization formula. Quebec makes massive amounts of revenue with Quebec Hydro. This should be included in the determination of who receives equalization payments. Quebec is a wealthy province and they are taking money away from poorer provinces that need and deserve the money more.

There are 5 people in Canada who understand how equalization works and how it works best. Everyone else is just playing political games by capitalizing on that ignorance and regional resentment for personal political power.

I said Saskatchewan and Alberts have issues, not Manitoba. The discussion does not reach your provincial newspapers. It does in ours. Your remark is disgusting and insulting to people in Saskatchewan and Alberta who are more aware of the issues than you are.

The Saskatchewan NDP government sued the federal government over the equalization formula. The Saskatchewan Party government is now fighting the issue. Your ignorance is not our ignorance. You don't have to know the exact formula to understand the issues that our provinces are fighting.

You can  stop calling me ignorant. It is unacceptable.

melovesproles wrote:

The NDP will have to pick its priorities carefully and make sure the issues are going to be seen as worth it. Forget election reform or stopping the pipeline.

I agree with a lot of your posts but this makes no sense.  The NDP has no obligation to prop the Liberals up on issues they don't agree with.  The NDP should be loud about proportional representation as a way to alleviate regional tensions.  The NDP should stand up against pipelines as half of their MPs come from ridings where that is a huge issue. Not to mention it highlights the fact the Liberals are insincere on climate change and improving relations with First Nations.

You have mentioned the importance of fundraising but the biggest impediment to the NDP's fundraising is that the party seems to care less about the principles of their base than short-term political positioning. Why would low income Canadians donate to a party that will jettison the issues they care about whenever the leadership decides they aren't politically expedient?  To the point that under Layton, NDP supporters were supposed to suddenly love mandatory minimums and under Mulclair, balanced budgets and austerity. If the NDP wants to fix their fundraising, they might look at this.

I thought Singh did a pretty good job with messaging during the campaign but even he slipped a few times.  Take for example Dental care. He comes out very principled in the first debate about univerrsal public dental care.  May attacks him on the cost of the program and argues for limiting it to low-income households but he stands his ground. I was watching with Green supporters and we all agree he does a good job. We talk about universality as a principle and why it is a good idea with healthcare/dental care.  Then a week or two later, suddenly it's dental care for households who make under $70,000, discarding the principle of universality which makes our healthcare so robust.  So not only does the NDP suddenly support a weaker  position but the people who were agreeing with them during the debate are abruptly abandoned and wondering whether the NDP means anything they say. 

If you look at the Bernie Sanders campaign, they are breaking records with raising small donations but it isn't just because they know how to use 'social media'. It's because people trust him and the people that have surrounded him to stand by their principles and fight for them.  The NDP for good reason does not have that kind of credibility and they won't get it back by weakly abandoning the issues that it campaigned on.

The NDP are fighting with the Greem party for votes. They will come out against pipelines and in support of green energy investments because they cannot afford to lose any voter support to the Green Party.

They cannot afford to lose seats on Vancouver Island and in the BC lower mainland. They also cannot afford to lose support from the First Nations people who are opposed to the pipelines.

I may be wrong on this but if the Greens support free market capitalism to fill the green technology void in Canada, I would assume that the NDP would fight for increased federal investments in green infrastructure and research and development programs.

I would like to hear what ideas come up about Oshawa. What would be the viability of the government buying the GM plant in Oshawa and converting it to build electric vehicles or something along those lines? We have to phase ourselves off fossil fuels. This is an opportunity to explore.

The Liberals need the support of just one of three parties to pass legislation and remain government. The Conservatives, Bloc and the NDP have competing priorities and ideologies, so it should be easy for the Liberals to trade off their support until the stars align for another election. The three parties have no leverage against the Liberals unless they work together.

There's no incentive for Trudeau to build a "progressive coalition" or accede to any NDP demands. The outcome could only affirm his conviction he was right to abandon electoral reform.

Yes, Manitoba and Quebec keep their electricity rates lower than what the market price for electricity actually is. Yet oil is rated at the international price. Alberta and Saskatchewan premiers feel that hydro electricity should be calculated at the market price rather than the subsidized rates that they charge their residents. 

And no, Saskatchewan does not cut a cheque to Quebec. Saskatchewan is losing hundreds of millions of dollars by the unequal assessment of calculating resource revenues.

Anyway, Quebec would still receive equalization payments just not as much under a fairer formula which calculates market price rather than subsidized price.