It is atrocious that in a 4-way race, a party with 26% could win. An utter disgrace to the concept of democracy and majority rule.
Which is why Justin Trudeau will say
"You can vote to STOP the Harper Conservatives. But you can't do that by voting NDP. That actually will not stop Harper. The only way to stop Harper, is not to vote NDP"
There goes the broken rec ord again. Time to change the tune.
The Conservatives won't want to change the voting system. They benefit the most from FPTP. The Cons can even win an election when they lose the popular vote. That's much harder to do for the Liberals & NDP.
Eg. An interesting historical note that some forget is that Pierre Trudeau actually won the popular vote in 1979, not Joe Clark. The Clark PC's won the most seats, but they were a couple of points behind the Trudeau Liberals in popular vote.
The Liberals will never change it either. They rely on their fake majorities. True, it's been a while since they won one, but the dream of getting 100% of the power with 40% of the votes remains. It's precisely why they didn't want to cooperate with the opposition to bring down the Harper government during five years of minority rule. They don't want to do anything that might potentially interfere with their own future illegitimate majority (or minority where they get to rule like a majority). For the Libs and Cons, the will of the people is nothing but an inconvenience.
There goes the broken record again. Time to change the tune.
But it already worked in the Ontario election, and the mayor's race in Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
Why not go 5 for 5?
NDP in Nova Scotia won their majority with 45%, Manitoba NDP won its majority with 46.16%.The Liberals will never change it either. They rely on their fake majorities. True, it's been a while since they won one, but the dream of getting 100% of the power with 40% of the votes remains. It's precisely why they didn't want to cooperate with the opposition to bring down the Harper government during five years of minority rule. They don't want to do anything that might potentially interfere with their own future illegitimate majority (or minority where they get to rule like a majority). For the Libs and Cons, the will of the people is nothing but an inconvenience.
Worst one of all, BCNDP won a majority with 39%. All great reasons why we need PR. There is barely an election that happens in this country that actually reflects the will of the electorate.
There goes the broken record again. Time to change the tune.
But it already worked in the Ontario election, and the mayor's race in Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
Why not go 5 for 5?
Actually, contrary to what some may think, it *didn't* work in the Toronto mayoral race, at least, not to the extent that strategists hoped for--otherwise, Olivia Chow wouldn't have hung tight to her 23% share.
Indeed, what we have is the paradoxical situation where "strategic voting" actually worked better in 2010, insofar that that Smitherman really succeeded in galvanizing a big pool of "left voters" that might otherwise have gone Joe Pants-ward. But that success is camoflauged by how it failed to achieve its goal, which was to defeat Ford (and that was arguably more due to Smitherman's deficiencies than to Joe Pants staying in the race).
By comparison, it flopped in 2014--but John Tory won anyway.
And, you know, strategic voting "flopped" in the best possible way. That is, the three-way dynamic makes examining and dissecting the poll-by-polls much more interesting for 2014 than for 2010. And if you feel that was at the expense of playing chicken with the prospect of a Ford mayoralty, that's your problem.
By comparison, it flopped in 2014--but John Tory won anyway.
And, you know, strategic voting "flopped" in the best possible way. That is, the three-way dynamic makes examining and dissecting the poll-by-polls much more interesting for 2014 than for 2010. And if you feel that was at the expense of playing chicken with the prospect of a Ford mayoralty, that's your problem.
But John Tory was the one that said
"You can vote to STOP Ford. But you cannot do that by voting Olivia Chow. That actually will not STOP Ford"
Olivia even lost Trinity-Spadina as that riding went to Tory. She won only one prov/fed riding. Parkdale High Park.
So it worked for Tory. If he didn't keep spouting strategic voting, we would have wound up with another Ford in the mayor's chair. As he only lost by 7%
Tory said something. And he won. So clearly he won because he said something.
Thanks for all that incisive analysis, terrytowel. As usual, you find the nuance that others overlooked.
Polls are good but what matters is Election Day. Can't wait to see the results, you will see me doing some major dancing
Have you and Pondering considered teaming up to win millions playing the lottery? I mean, these magical powers of precognition you guys have could make you some serious money.
has there been any polls on how many Canadians actually know Tom Mulcair recently? Is the number still 1 in 3?
I also assume his approval rating is in the mid 50's.
has there been any polls on how many Canadians actually know Tom Mulcair recently? Is the number still 1 in 3?
I also assume his approval rating is in the mid 50's.
Why "assume"? Why not check out the numbers available at the Abacus link?
I'll transcribe them here. Abacus has National numbers for the leaders, but I don't see a regional breakdown. In previous surveys, some pollsters have shown approval ratings by region (Mulcair has had high approval numbers in Quebec in the past, but usually low numbers in Ontario.)
HARPER
Negative - 40%
Positive - 34%
Neutral - 25%
-
MULCAIR
Negative - 20%
Positive - 28%
Neutral - 52%
-
TRUDEAU
Negative - 30%
Positive - 35%
Neutral - 35%
By comparison, it flopped in 2014--but John Tory won anyway.
And, you know, strategic voting "flopped" in the best possible way. That is, the three-way dynamic makes examining and dissecting the poll-by-polls much more interesting for 2014 than for 2010. And if you feel that was at the expense of playing chicken with the prospect of a Ford mayoralty, that's your problem.
But John Tory was the one that said
"You can vote to STOP Ford. But you cannot do that by voting Olivia Chow. That actually will not STOP Ford"
Olivia even lost Trinity-Spadina as that riding went to Tory. She won only one prov/fed riding. Parkdale High Park.
So it worked for Tory. If he didn't keep spouting strategic voting, we would have wound up with another Ford in the mayor's chair. As he only lost by 7%
Of course, he SAID it. But relative to what we were led to expect, he still underperformed at that gambit (and the "only lost by 7%" proves the point--but hey, "a win's a win", etc).
And my contention remains that based upon their indivdual performances on the stump, in "transcribed" terms the Tory-Chow differential would not, not, NOT have been terribly different had there been no Ford in the race (indeed, as such, it would have vaguely echoed the Layton-vs-Rowlands result in 1991).
For you see, it's about a *different* kind of "strategic voting": not the artificial "unite x to defeat y" gambit, but rather about "backing a winner". Which is how Harper got his majority: he came across as "winner", Iggy came across as "loser", and Layton was still too much the wild card outside of Quebec.
And Tory was better at projecting "mayoral winner" than Chow--though a bit ironically, given their respective past political histories. So for him to sound the "strategic vote" note was, in his case, more window dressing than anything--a certain demo that *might* have considered Chow gravitated to him the same backing-a-winner way they gravitated to Rowlands over Layton in 1991 (though on different grounds; Layton in '91 beeing too "socialist hordes" for voter comfort, while Chow in '14 being too anemic--perhaps by way of dispelling the "socialist hordes" stigma?--for voter comfort)
===================
Oh, and actually, the psephologist in me *prefers* a 7-point win in a 3-way to a 27-point-win in a 2-way, even if it doesn't serve the "decisive win" ego. IOW it's not just about winning or losing, it's about the heart and soul of electoral dynamism, its complexities and subtleties.
And with this in mind, terrytowel, re "She won only one prov/fed riding. Parkdale High Park": may I correct you re prov/fed riding equivalents. In the two wards making up Parkdale-High Park, Tory got 21343 to Chow's 18220. The Davenport equivalent, by comparison, gave Chow 15240 to Tory's 9375 (and Ford's 12168). And even if Chow lost her own ward, the *entirety* of the Trinity-Spadina equivalent gave Chow 26440 to Tory's 24106.
So, on that note--checkmate, terrytowel.
Tory said something. And he won. So clearly he won because he said something.
Thanks for all that incisive analysis, terrytowel. As usual, you find the nuance that others overlooked.
The ballot box question for the Toronto election was the Ford. Yes or No. Toronto wanted them out. The residents of Toronto wanted to rally behind the person who could get rid of the Fords once and for all.
Since John Tory was leading he spoke to all Torontonnians that he was the best person to get rid of the Ford. And not Olivia Chow was third and BEHIND Ford.
So yes Tory won because he urged people to back him, so Toronto could get rid of Ford once and for all.
Despite this back and forth, I think we have been getting along much better now Jacob Two-Two. Let's have a friendly debate and not make it personal. Agree to disagree, cause I respect your opinion. So I hope you respect mine.
And with this in mind, terrytowel, re "She won only one prov/fed riding. Parkdale High Park": may I correct you re prov/fed riding equivalents. In the two wards making up Parkdale-High Park, Tory got 21343 to Chow's 18220. The Davenport equivalent, by comparison, gave Chow 15240 to Tory's 9375 (and Ford's 12168). And even if Chow lost her own ward, the *entirety* of the Trinity-Spadina equivalent gave Chow 26440 to Tory's 24106.
So, on that note--checkmate, terrytowel.
So she won two prov/fed ridings? OK my mistake. Yep checkmate indeed.
It is atrocious that in a 4-way race, a party with 26% could win. An utter disgrace to the concept of democracy and majority rule.
Which is why Justin Trudeau will say
"You can vote to STOP the Harper Conservatives. But you can't do that by voting NDP. That actually will not stop Harper. The only way to stop Harper, is not to vote NDP"
No he won't. Trudeau wants people to vote for him not against Harper.
It is atrocious that in a 4-way race, a party with 26% could win. An utter disgrace to the concept of democracy and majority rule.
Which is why Justin Trudeau will say
"You can vote to STOP the Harper Conservatives. But you can't do that by voting NDP. That actually will not stop Harper. The only way to stop Harper, is not to vote NDP"
No he won't. Trudeau wants people to vote for him not against Harper.
Correct. Trudeau has much better political instincts than the last couple of Liberal leaders and he knows that voters need to have a reason to vote for a party other than being pressured that they have to do so to block someone else.
Terry Towel has a point about strategic voting, but I think he is overdoing it a bit here. Voters get tired of being told who to vote for or that they have to vote for one person to stop another. They want to be motivated to vote for a person or a party they actually are enthusiastic about.
If Justin were to be as crass as Ignatieff was about the blue door vs. red door, he would probably lose support.
But instead he said, "It is the Liberal party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear." trying to marginalise the NDP to the exact same effect. Stealing Jack Layton's last words to the party right out of his mouth just two years after his death.
No, Justin could never be as crass as Ignatieff. He passed that point long ago.
Justin didn't steal anybody's words because those words don't belong to Jack Layton or any other leader. In fact, it was Layton who borrowed those words from Wifrid Laurier who had said something very similiar about 100 years earlier. It is also similiar to FDR's words about hope vs. fear at his 1933 inauguration.
They are timeless words & concepts that don't belong to any one leader or any one time.
Have a gander scott16
http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/federal-election-polling-ipsos-rei...
has there been any polls on how many Canadians actually know Tom Mulcair recently? Is the number still 1 in 3?
I also assume his approval rating is in the mid 50's.
Why "assume"? Why not check out the numbers available at the Abacus link?
I'll transcribe them here. Abacus has National numbers for the leaders, but I don't see a regional breakdown. In previous surveys, some pollsters have shown approval ratings by region (Mulcair has had high approval numbers in Quebec in the past, but usually low numbers in Ontario.)
HARPER
Negative - 40%
Positive - 34%
Neutral - 25%
-
MULCAIR
Negative - 20%
Positive - 28%
Neutral - 52%
-
TRUDEAU
Negative - 30%
Positive - 35%
Neutral - 35%
And with this in mind, terrytowel, re "She won only one prov/fed riding. Parkdale High Park": may I correct you re prov/fed riding equivalents. In the two wards making up Parkdale-High Park, Tory got 21343 to Chow's 18220. The Davenport equivalent, by comparison, gave Chow 15240 to Tory's 9375 (and Ford's 12168). And even if Chow lost her own ward, the *entirety* of the Trinity-Spadina equivalent gave Chow 26440 to Tory's 24106.
So, on that note--checkmate, terrytowel.
So she won two prov/fed ridings? OK my mistake. Yep checkmate indeed.
And a checkmate compounded by how P-HP was *not* one of the two. (Essentially, it was a matter of heavy Tory support in Ward 13--which encompasses Swansea, Bloor West et al--cancelling out the Chow advantage in Ward 14.)
So, now that you know, why did you repeat that non-truth in the Federal NDP Candidate thread?
Give it a rest, Debater - you are being a weasel again with your half-truths and deceptions (with apologies to all rodents).
This is Trudeau's full quote: Make no mistake, the NDP is no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton… it is the Liberal party tonight that proved hope is stronger than fear, that positive politics can and should win out over negative.”
So, yeah, Trudeau was citing Laurier or FDR. Only in your dreams, Debater.... Trudeau was just being a jerk. Own it.
I don't agree with you. And it's arrogant of the NDP to think that they "own" those words. Words that Layton borrowed from earlier leaders.
And perhaps when you & some of the other NDP diehards here admit your own half-truths & deceptions, you'll earn the right to lecture me.
And the continual practice of name-calling by NDP posters rather than having a civil debate also proves that point.
And the continual practice of name-calling by NDP posters rather than having a civil debate also proves that point.
I see what you mean about the name-calling. I have noticed that some (but not all) NDP supporters tend to call you names. My take is that, in this situation, the name-calling is not a result of an over-reliance on that type of communication, but rather based in a lack of respect for you personally.
And a checkmate compounded by how P-HP was *not* one of the two. (Essentially, it was a matter of heavy Tory support in Ward 13--which encompasses Swansea, Bloor West et al--cancelling out the Chow advantage in Ward 14.)
So, now that you know, why did you repeat that non-truth in the Federal NDP Candidate thread?
Did I say she won Parkdale-High Park? I said
"But the NDP can take comfort that Olivia Chow dominated Parkdale-High Park in the mayor's race."
She pulled in strong numbers and came within striking distance of winning that riding.
Dominating means "have a commanding influence on" as voters in that area rallied to Chow, but she still came up short.
Which bodes well for the NDP in that riding.
