Ipsos: Cons 31 Liberals 31 NDP 30
http://globalnews.ca/news/2029234/ndps-national-surge-due-to-popularity-...
Quebec: NDP 41 Liberals 25 Bloc 20 Cons 11
Ontario: Cons 36 Libs 35 NDP 24
It's only Ontario that's holding the NDP back. What the hell is wrong with Ontario? I'm from Ontario, and I don't get it.
If things keep on as they are now, they'll come around. Like last election, the campaign is going to move support to the NDP.
Libs really underestimated the anger in Canada about the Terror bill
Especially in Quebec where polls showed majority of support for the bill. Libs hoped to use it as a wedge issue against the NDP
But instead the NDP poll numbers have increased because of people opposition to it
Speaking of which, Angus Reid released a poll about the bill a week ago:
http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015.05.25-Bill-C-51.pdf
That's the trouble with Liberals - they believe in polls, not issues. It amazes me how over the years Liberals here both before and after the 2011 election continually talked about how well they are doing in the polls or how they are undergoing a comeback, but rarely refer to an issue, unless it is in the context of winning (rather than the merits of the issue) This has resulted in a Seinfeld image of Trudeau - a lot of talk about nothing. Over time more and more people figure it out.
On the other hand, a guy like Bernie Sanders, who is somewhat gruff and never deals in pleasantries, gains a lot of respect and even votes from Vermont Republicans who don't agree with him on many issues. They have learnt over time that he means what he says, focuses on the issues, and tries to put into practice what he preaches. If Liberals were to try this for a decade or two, people might start believing them; but, of course they won't -they want power now and whatever issues they bring up are only talking points and pablum for the masses meant to appeal to voters, but they lack any conviction and intention to implement them if they think this might lose them votes in the future.
Mulcair is somewhat like Sanders in his manner, and, like Sanders, it is now paying off.
Ipsos: Cons 31 Liberals 31 NDP 30
http://globalnews.ca/news/2029234/ndps-national-surge-due-to-popularity-...
Quebec: NDP 41 Liberals 25 Bloc 20 Cons 11
Ontario: Cons 36 Libs 35 NDP 24
It's only Ontario that's holding the NDP back. What the hell is wrong with Ontario? I'm from Ontario, and I don't get it.
Depends on the poll, I believe one had the NDP at 31%
That's the trouble with Liberals - they believe in polls, not issues. It amazes me how over the years Liberals here both before and after the 2011 election continually talked about how well they are doing in the polls or how they are undergoing a comeback, but rarely refer to an issue, unless it is in the context of winning (rather than the merits of the issue) This has resulted in a Seinfeld image of Trudeau - a lot of talk about nothing. Over time more and more people figure it out.
100% agreed.
Liberal strategists don't even have enough integrity to learn the right lessons from the NDP.
They saw Jack Layton work slowly over the course of a decade (and a lifetime, really) to build trust with voters. And the Liberal Party, instead of building real trust and credibility, the takeaway was that they just needed a friendlier leader who smiles more.
They don't remember that Jack Layton campaigned on gay rights and environmentalism when they were still controversial, and that that it took almost a full generation for the electorate to come around. They forgot the time they called him Taliban Jack, only to find that public opinion shifted, and even the top military advisors thought it made sense to negotiate with insurgent groups in Afghanistan. And there's all the times people told him to shave his moustache.
The reason people trusted Jack isn't because of his grooming. It's because he said what was right, polls be damned, and kept saying it until people came around. That earns a LOT of trust. Being courageous, being consistent.
It's part of the reason that Mulcair has risen in the polls, taking controversial but correct stances on Bill C-51, and on Keystone, until the electorate finally appreciates the message.
And it's the exact reason Trudeau has sunk in the polls. And could still sink further, if voters no longer believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Abacus:
Cons 31
NDP 28
Libs 28
the Liberals have a slight lead over the Conservatives in Ontario and the NDP has a sizeable lead over the Liberals in Quebec. We see a close 3-way race in BC. -
http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/
NDP has the largest "would consider" number at 56.%
That's the trouble with Liberals - they believe in polls, not issues. It amazes me how over the years Liberals here both before and after the 2011 election continually talked about how well they are doing in the polls or how they are undergoing a comeback, but rarely refer to an issue, unless it is in the context of winning (rather than the merits of the issue) This has resulted in a Seinfeld image of Trudeau - a lot of talk about nothing. Over time more and more people figure it out.100% agreed.
Liberal strategists don't even have enough integrity to learn the right lessons from the NDP.
They saw Jack Layton work slowly over the course of a decade (and a lifetime, really) to build trust with voters. And the Liberal Party, instead of building real trust and credibility, the takeaway was that they just needed a friendlier leader who smiles more.
They don't remember that Jack Layton campaigned on gay rights and environmentalism when they were still controversial, and that that it took almost a full generation for the electorate to come around. They forgot the time they called him Taliban Jack, only to find that public opinion shifted, and even the top military advisors thought it made sense to negotiate with insurgent groups in Afghanistan. And there's all the times people told him to shave his moustache.
The reason people trusted Jack isn't because of his grooming. It's because he said what was right, polls be damned, and kept saying it until people came around. That earns a LOT of trust. Being courageous, being consistent.
It's part of the reason that Mulcair has risen in the polls, taking controversial but correct stances on Bill C-51, and on Keystone, until the electorate finally appreciates the message.
And it's the exact reason Trudeau has sunk in the polls. And could still sink further, if voters no longer believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Truly. Now that Trudeau has burned off most of the social capital that he acquired through his "august" parentage, we are looking at a scenario where he is polling at that might easily have been achieved by Marc Garneau or Joyce Murray as leader.
Mind you, the party as an institution was in serious trouble, and the brand might not have survived the interim period, and Trudeau has salvaged the party, and is responsible for the rise of its financial fortunes from near bankruptcy.
On the issue of "principles" when comparing Mulcair vs. Layton I put Mulcair much lower on the weasel scale, truth be told -- so far at least.
Actually I think there is alot of social capital left for Justin Trudeau to lose, he's not at Rock bottom yet.
Libs really underestimated the anger in Canada about the Terror bill
Especially in Quebec where polls showed majority of support for the bill. Libs hoped to use it as a wedge issue against the NDP
But instead the NDP poll numbers have increased because of people opposition to it
Speaking of which, Angus Reid released a poll about the bill a week ago:
http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015.05.25-Bill-C-51.pdf
Not surprising results, since the poll question is obviously "spun" favourably and uncritically, listing summaries of the measures in the most reasonable light.
Does anyone really care if terrorist "suspects" are jailed for 7 or 3 days in preventative custody without charge? Not really, but if you tell them they have lowered the standard of "suspicion", as well, they might be less positive. Ditto, "promoting" terrorism. The way Angus Reid distills the message of C-51 into survey questions, is a message in itself.
"More Canadians (58%) have confidence in law enforcement agencies to appropriately interpret specific pieces of the legislation, namely “promoting terrorism” than those who don’t (42%)."
Did they really ask: "Do you have confidence that law enforcement agencies will appropriately interpret the law on "promoting terrorism"?
Indeed, nearly half of all Canadians don't have confidence in law enforcement in this regard, and support is much lower when talking about the law as "applied" as opposed to in theory, where 82% of all respondents are in favour shutting down web sites that "promote terrorism". Of course they are! I am too.
The question is in the defintion of what "promoting" means, and on the score, when the rubber meets the road, the bill loses traction.
The EKOS polls on C-51 don't do that, merely ask if people are for an against, and support only has a small majority, and it is very weak, as familitariy increases.
What's interesting is the Conservative fall that has also taken place.
As for the Liberals, I think they are hoping that they ultimately benefit from the declining Conservative numbers.
It appears that since the last Abacus poll, Liberal support has actually remained stable at 28%. What appears to have happened is a 5-point Conservative drop and a 4-point NDP increase.
---
Conservatives shed 5 points, NDP up 4
http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/
ABACUS
APRIL 2015
CPC - 36%
LPC - 28%
NDP - 24%
--
MAY 2015
CPC - 31%
LPC - 28%
NDP - 28%
----
All votes are in play. The NDP hasn't just been focused on this narrow sliver of "swingable voters". Everyone is frustrated with the direction of the country. Everyone is swingable.
Some excerpts from the ABACUS analysis:
---
Prognostication in these circumstances in getting a lot tougher, and when asked how they think the election will turn out, Canadians are reflecting this uncertainty. Today 26% think the Liberals will win, 24% say the Conservatives (down 12 points in a month) and 15% say the NDP (up 6 points in the month and 8 points over the last quarter). Growth in the belief that the NDP could win is up in many parts of the country, not only in Quebec.
. . .
Today’s numbers indicate that the desire for change in Ottawa is rising. There is a larger potential for the NDP brand to consolidate the “change vote” than we have seen in the past. However, the Liberal brand is highly competitive, especially in the critical battleground of Ontario, and is seen as a more likely victor in October.
The results are sobering news for Conservative election planners. While our data had shown an uptick in support based on the recent budget, this effect has dissipated. With 20 weeks to Election Day the incumbents are struggling to build enthusiasm around their economic record or plans, and as our next release will reveal, the terror/security issue is losing momentum for the CPC as well.
---
http://abacusdata.ca/up-for-grabs-federal-election-2015-a-toss-up/
Isn't it interesting how the pollster's comments are always slanted towards the party they want to win. Best to ignore most of the editorializing, just focus on the the actual polling results and make up your own mind about what is happening.
By far the biggest news right now is the huge surge in support for the NDP since the Alberta election.
Momentun and trends are what count.
#LPC numbers artificially inflated by Atlantic.
#NDP numbers artificially inflated by Quebec.
#CPC? Pretty competitive everywhere.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/06/election-2015-in-140-characters/
And Kinsella's comments inflated by his ego.
And Kinsella's comments inflated by his ego.\
Maybe the Liberals screwed up by not taking Kinsella as a candidate. After all they couldn't be doing much worse than they are now, could they?
Looks like Nanos is finally showing the NDP surge as well
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-on-the-numbers
I'll make my obligatory "the index is stupid" comment. But it's interesting to see Mulcair have such a dominant lead for "has the qualities of a good leader". If he keeps his name and face out there, it's only a matter of time before it translates into "preferred PM".
It shows that the NDP hasn't yet hit its ceiling.
Nanos Index is stupid.
I guess to seasoned poll watchers it is somewhat interesting because it consistently tracks certain qualities, but the logic behind its number generation methodology is opaque to me, and misleading when presented as a "poll".
That's the trouble with Liberals - they believe in polls, not issues. It amazes me how over the years Liberals here both before and after the 2011 election continually talked about how well they are doing in the polls or how they are undergoing a comeback, but rarely refer to an issue, unless it is in the context of winning (rather than the merits of the issue) This has resulted in a Seinfeld image of Trudeau - a lot of talk about nothing. Over time more and more people figure it out.100% agreed.
Liberal strategists don't even have enough integrity to learn the right lessons from the NDP.
They saw Jack Layton work slowly over the course of a decade (and a lifetime, really) to build trust with voters. And the Liberal Party, instead of building real trust and credibility, the takeaway was that they just needed a friendlier leader who smiles more.
They don't remember that Jack Layton campaigned on gay rights and environmentalism when they were still controversial, and that that it took almost a full generation for the electorate to come around. They forgot the time they called him Taliban Jack, only to find that public opinion shifted, and even the top military advisors thought it made sense to negotiate with insurgent groups in Afghanistan. And there's all the times people told him to shave his moustache.
The reason people trusted Jack isn't because of his grooming. It's because he said what was right, polls be damned, and kept saying it until people came around. That earns a LOT of trust. Being courageous, being consistent.
It's part of the reason that Mulcair has risen in the polls, taking controversial but correct stances on Bill C-51, and on Keystone, until the electorate finally appreciates the message.
And it's the exact reason Trudeau has sunk in the polls. And could still sink further, if voters no longer believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Truly. Now that Trudeau has burned off most of the social capital that he acquired through his "august" parentage, we are looking at a scenario where he is polling at that might easily have been achieved by Marc Garneau or Joyce Murray as leader.
Mind you, the party as an institution was in serious trouble, and the brand might not have survived the interim period, and Trudeau has salvaged the party, and is responsible for the rise of its financial fortunes from near bankruptcy.
On the issue of "principles" when comparing Mulcair vs. Layton I put Mulcair much lower on the weasel scale, truth be told -- so far at least.
There were times I found Layton smarmy and slippery -- he got popular when he no longer appeared as much like that.
I have not found Mulcair to be either of these.
Sorry to say it but I actually think Mulcair would be a better PM than Layton would have been.
I have never met Mulcair although I have met Layton and had personal conversations with him three times. I did not dislike him but I always felt he was playing all the angles. He was more obviously political in many respects than Mulcair. In that sense a Mulcair PM would be a breath of fresh air over all the previous PMs in the last few decades.
#LPC numbers artificially inflated by Atlantic.
#NDP numbers artificially inflated by Quebec.
#CPC? Pretty competitive everywhere.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/06/election-2015-in-140-characters/
Kinsella is wrong on this.
Inflated poll numbers comes from having votes in places that will not produce seats. Areas of strength deliver seats -- often disproportionately.
It is the CPC that have their numbers inlfated. -- They run second in places with little hope of getting many seats (anywhere East of the Ottawa river). They look ahead in Ontario due to strong seconds in 905, the North etc. But seconds inflate numbers and don't win seats. The CPC will run second to the NDP in some places and second to the Liberals in others.
If the Liberals drop to 18% and the Conservatives get that support then they are in better shape as they were in 2011. But if that support stays with the Liberals or goes NDP then the Conservatives are in a very dangerous position. Add to that losses in Edmonton and BC, they have few areas of strength and widely spread out and depleted popularity.
In other words-- the Conservatives are in a good position to gain from as they have a good base everywhere. However, they are also in a dangerous position where at this level they would lsoe a lot and a small decline from here could turn significant losses into a rout.
Unfortunately for the right-wing politicians politics is all about who gets the next government contract because they have to pay back their financial backers. For some reason this generates very little discussion in the mainstream press. 
That is why we need to get the corporate money and the union money too, out of politcs.
The funny thing about Layton is that burried under that smarmy silpperiness, and making an appearance at playing too clever by half politics, was a person of principle.
He was not a very good actor, and came off badly when trying to appear in bigger boots than he actually filled.
It was some time ago, back when Layton was on council, when I was at an event where people were doing performance art protest on a small scale on the U of T campus, and soon enough they were being hassled by the cops, who were trying to get them to stop. Layton road up on his bike entirely by accident, and observed the proceeding as it unfolded, and then intervened very sharply with the police to tell them that the protestoers were "allowed to do that", and that they had every "right" to be there.
It was interesting because there was absolutely no political reason for making the intervention, other than impressing a bunch of radical activists and kids who had no idea who he was. He just did it.
Mulcair, I know less well but he comes off well, and has a clear respect for principled legality that shines through.
sdm - it already has.
Mulcair gained 5% on Harper and 4% on Trudeau in the Preferred PM category in the last week.
Nanos: Cons 32 NDP 30 Libs 29. Four week rolling sample.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos%20Political%20Index%202...
In other words-- the Conservatives are in a good position to gain from as they have a good base everywhere. However, they are also in a dangerous position where at this level they would lsoe a lot and a small decline from here could turn significant losses into a rout.
In previous elections the Conservatives have benefited from the fact that their richer and older voters can be relied on to turn out when turnout in general has been sliding. Recently some Conservative voters seem to have become discontented, including the libertarian types and gun enthusiasts who have protested against Bill C-51. Harper seems now unpopular with veterans, and the PMO completely blew the issue of keeping Canadian soldiers in the Middle East anonymous, appearing almost wilfully irresponsible. Conservative voters don't have to change their allegiance to damage Harper, they just have to stay home. If some of the young voters who are normally apathetic can be induced to come out and vote, as the Council of Canadians is trying to get them to do, the NDP and perhaps even the Greens could benefit.
Doug, if the Greens benefit so will the Cons.
One of the maddening things about the spate of recent polls showing the NDP in contention to form government is the 7% or so the Greens are at. That may get them 2 seats at most but it will hand maybe 15 seats to the Cons.
Add even half the current Green support to the NDP and it forms government. But Emay would rather have 2 seats and PM Harper than 1 seat and PM Mulcair.
The irony is Mulcair has promised PR which means long term the greens will benifit more if Green voters vote NDP then if they vote green.
The Greens are lower going into this election than they were the last. What is the fear?
They lost half their vote in the last election as things got tighter.
Also Green supporters are unlikely to back the Greens in great numbers in the ridings the NDP are most likely to win.
It is true that E May may do a little better if she is in the debates but I don't see Greens in large numbers ignoring tight NDP-CPC races
In most polls, the Greens are overcounted. I suspect they want to be counted when the polls come around. But on election day, they cast their ballot for someone with a shot at winning, or stay home.
3-way federal race would have unpredictable outcome
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-way-federal-race-would-have-unpredicta...
Or, "Eric Grenier reads polls to us, states the obvious".
In most polls, the Greens are overcounted. I suspect they want to be counted when the polls come around. But on election day, they cast their ballot for someone with a shot at winning, or stay home.
I have never believed it works like this.
More people vote than get polled. So the Greens who get polled probably do vote for their party. They are enthusiastic and so they do agree to be polled. When it comes time to vote, however, they are a lower percentage of voters as supporters of other parties who are perhaps a little less eager to be polled come out.
The same is true when there is a leadership campaign. It is not necessarily true that there is a big honeymoon in the geenral population but the supporters of the party with the leadership are engaged and enthusiastic and more willing to be polled.
Polling measures enthusiasm and engagement more than support. when you get closer to an election more of the population is engaged and so the results get more representative.
Remember only about 1% of numbers dialled results in someone picking up and willing to do a survey.
I think that's a valid explanation, Sean. And another good reason why there's a small jump between the final poll and the actual election.
My impression is that for a long time Green supporters have been more susceptible to strategic voting than most voters, also that since the NDP committed to proportional representation, some Green supporters/sympathizers have switched their voting to the NDP for the time being.
I expect that a lot of the people who say they will vote Green will in fact vote NDP or Liberal, mostly in ridings where the Green candidate doesn't appear to have a chance.
It seems to be true that most Green supporters would vote NDP in preference to another non-Green party. However, the Greens do appeal to some Red Tory/old PC types even though there may not be so many around these days.
Nicky, maybe you should ask yourself what the NDP would have to do to *attract* the votes of people who now support the Greens. Or better still, *deserve* those votes. People do not support the Greens out of perversity, and a party that speaks to a need is not built from nothing by supporting another party.
My impression is that for a long time Green supporters have been more susceptible to strategic voting than most voters, also that since the NDP committed to proportional representation, some Green supporters/sympathizers have switched their voting to the NDP for the time being.
I expect that a lot of the people who say they will vote Green will in fact vote NDP or Liberal, mostly in ridings where the Green candidate doesn't appear to have a chance.
It seems to be true that most Green supporters would vote NDP in preference to another non-Green party. However, the Greens do appeal to some Red Tory/old PC types even though there may not be so many around these days.
Nicky, maybe you should ask yourself what the NDP would have to do to *attract* the votes of people who now support the Greens. Or better still, *deserve* those votes. People do not support the Greens out of perversity, and a party that speaks to a need is not built from nothing by supporting another party.
All good points--
The obvious answer is that the NDP has to describe exactly how they would reform the electoral process including a timeline and make the committment as ironclad as possible. The NDP needs to declare that if it has the votes in the House what exactly it will do.
Would it propose a specific plan and put that to a vote at the next election or would it (can it?) replace the electoral system without a referendum. Should the NDP put a specific detailed proposal on the table before the election and claim a mandate if it had enough seats to implement it. What level of support is reasonable to claim a mandate for this?
Could the NDP meet with the Greens and Liberals and float a plan -- then the Liberals would be forced to say if they are supportive of the plan or not.
Perhaps the party has to go the next step on this and there is not much time. I doubt Green supporters would be willing to accept much less than specifics to forego supporting their own party.
The NDP have to be careful about this -- it is not a pre-election arrangement as the party opposes those and it cannot be a vague Liberal-style lend-us-your-vote deal unless there is purpose to that.
I think you are crediting voters with much too much intelligence. The 100 of so people in canada who are Green party "activists" probably know what proprotional representation is and might be willing to vote for a party that promised to intriduce it. the other 99.9999% of people who currently tell pollsters they would vote Green probably don't even know what proportional reprsentation is and couldn't tell you anything specific policies of the Green party. They are just low information "none of the above" voters, plus a few people who put their recyclables in a blue box and therefore think they are God's gift to the world and have this fantasy that voting for a party that has the word "green' in its name means they are doing their part to save the planet.
I think you are crediting voters with much too much intelligence. The 100 of so people in canada who are Green party "activists" probably know what proprotional representation is and might be willing to vote for a party that promised to intriduce it. the other 99.9999% of people who currently tell pollsters they would vote Green probably don't even know what proportional reprsentation is and couldn't tell you anything specific policies of the Green party. They are just low information "none of the above" voters, plus a few people who put their recyclables in a blue box and therefore think they are God's gift to the world and have this fantasy that voting for a party that has the word "green' in its name means they are doing their part to save the planet.
DING DING DING!! Give the man a prize!!
I've meet exactly two people who are true Greens and understand that the party’s platform is mess of equal parts Environmentalism/Libertarianism/Fiscal Conservativism /Opposing fringe loony ideas (ie. return to the gold standard at the same time keeping the BoC as the only printer of money to regulate inflation).
Everyone else has no idea what they really stand for beyond; they're Environmental supporters. I usually rebut with the line "buying organic vegetables isn't a substitute for understanding the issues and knowing who to vote for."
For fun my favorite opposing policy of the greens is; A free national high-speed broadband network and a National ban on Wi-Fi as it is an unproven technology that cooks children in classrooms…
I’ll grant you that was a while ago, so maybe those policies are not there anymore, but this kind of nutty stuff gets in. In my mind the Greens are about as serious a party as the Rhinos, the only reason there anywhere now is a mix of uninformed supporter and that Mrs. May has basically made the party about her election and leadership.
All good points--
The obvious answer is that the NDP has to describe exactly how they would reform the electoral process including a timeline and make the committment as ironclad as possible. The NDP needs to declare that if it has the votes in the House what exactly it will do.
Would it propose a specific plan and put that to a vote at the next election or would it (can it?) replace the electoral system without a referendum. Should the NDP put a specific detailed proposal on the table before the election and claim a mandate if it had enough seats to implement it. What level of support is reasonable to claim a mandate for this?
Could the NDP meet with the Greens and Liberals and float a plan -- then the Liberals would be forced to say if they are supportive of the plan or not.
Perhaps the party has to go the next step on this and there is not much time. I doubt Green supporters would be willing to accept much less than specifics to forego supporting their own party.
The NDP have to be careful about this -- it is not a pre-election arrangement as the party opposes those and it cannot be a vague Liberal-style lend-us-your-vote deal unless there is purpose to that.
Sean, I think that what the NDP has committed to to date is enough. It says it wants proportional representation. It seems clear that it wants some form of MMP, likely with open regional lists following the Law Commission of Canada model and Wilf Day's suggestions. I think that would be acceptable to the Greens.
While a substantial minority within the Liberal party supports PR, the insider and majority view is that the party wants IRV/AV (a single transferable vote within one-seat constitutencies) which is not a proportional system any more than FPTP is. What it would do is allow everyone to vote their heart on their first choice without fear, and then select which of two mainstream parties they want to get a majority of seats. The Liberals think most people would choose them, although in a situation such as we see now they could get a nasty surprise.
The Liberals appear to fear (rightly) that PR would make it unlikely that any single-party majority government in Canada would ever exist again. Liberal minority or coalition governments would have to govern with the tacit or formal support and possibly participation of the NDP and/or the Greens. Their business supporters don't like this prospect at all.
Note that proportional representation absolutely requires some kind of multi-seat constituencies, even if as in MPP, single-seat constituencies are nested within them.
A majority vote in the Commons can definitely (if the Senate co-operates) change the electoral system. The Canada Elections Act determines the system we have now. What we can't do without a constitutional amendment is have constituency boundaries cross provincial boundaries. MPs have to be attributable to a single province, and the numbers for the provinces have to follow the prescription of the Constitution.
Two possibilities worry me:
1. A Liberal minority governing with NDP support. No PR if the LIberals can help it.
2. An NDP minority governing with Liberal support. Again, no PR unless the Liberals feel they have their backs against the wall for some reason. Or if enough Liberal and Conservative renegades plus the Greens can be found to support PR. Just possibly we might end up with some hybrid system like IRV/AV for the rural areas and small towns and PR-STV (possibly with a small MMP top-up component) in the big cities, such as existed in Manitoba and Alberta for some years. I'm not sure this would be stable; it might permit a majority government which would end it and revert to FPTP or pure IRV/AV, as happened in the provinces.
3-way federal race would have unpredictable outcome
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-way-federal-race-would-have-unpredicta...
Or, "Eric Grenier reads polls to us, states the obvious".
All good points--
The obvious answer is that the NDP has to describe exactly how they would reform the electoral process including a timeline and make the committment as ironclad as possible. The NDP needs to declare that if it has the votes in the House what exactly it will do.
Would it propose a specific plan and put that to a vote at the next election or would it (can it?) replace the electoral system without a referendum. Should the NDP put a specific detailed proposal on the table before the election and claim a mandate if it had enough seats to implement it. What level of support is reasonable to claim a mandate for this?
Could the NDP meet with the Greens and Liberals and float a plan -- then the Liberals would be forced to say if they are supportive of the plan or not.
Perhaps the party has to go the next step on this and there is not much time. I doubt Green supporters would be willing to accept much less than specifics to forego supporting their own party.
The NDP have to be careful about this -- it is not a pre-election arrangement as the party opposes those and it cannot be a vague Liberal-style lend-us-your-vote deal unless there is purpose to that.
Sean, I think that what the NDP has committed to to date is enough. It says it wants proportional representation. It seems clear that it wants some form of MMP, likely with open regional lists following the Law Commission of Canada model and Wilf Day's suggestions. I think that would be acceptable to the Greens.
While a substantial minority within the Liberal party supports PR, the insider and majority view is that the party wants IRV/AV (a single transferable vote within one-seat constitutencies) which is not a proportional system any more than FPTP is. What it would do is allow everyone to vote their heart on their first choice without fear, and then select which of two mainstream parties they want to get a majority of seats. The Liberals think most people would choose them, although in a situation such as we see now they could get a nasty surprise.
The Liberals appear to fear (rightly) that PR would make it unlikely that any single-party majority government in Canada would ever exist again. Liberal minority or coalition governments would have to govern with the tacit or formal support and possibly participation of the NDP and/or the Greens. Their business supporters don't like this prospect at all.
Note that proportional representation absolutely requires some kind of multi-seat constituencies, even if as in MPP, single-seat constituencies are nested within them.
A majority vote in the Commons can definitely (if the Senate co-operates) change the electoral system. The Canada Elections Act determines the system we have now. What we can't do without a constitutional amendment is have constituency boundaries cross provincial boundaries. MPs have to be attributable to a single province, and the numbers for the provinces have to follow the prescription of the Constitution.
Two possibilities worry me:
1. A Liberal minority governing with NDP support. No PR if the LIberals can help it.
2. An NDP minority governing with Liberal support. Again, no PR unless the Liberals feel they have their backs against the wall for some reason. Or if enough Liberal and Conservative renegades plus the Greens can be found to support PR. Just possibly we might end up with some hybrid system like IRV/AV for the rural areas and small towns and PR-STV (possibly with a small MMP top-up component) in the big cities, such as existed in Manitoba and Alberta for some years. I'm not sure this would be stable; it might permit a majority government which would end it and revert to FPTP or pure IRV/AV, as happened in the provinces.
I think the NDP's formal commitment to MMP in their election platform is great just the way it has been presented. It's also great that they seem to understand that open-list MMP is the best form of electoral reform for Canada at the federal level.
I did not mean this as a prescription -- I was answering the question as to what the NDP would have to do to get the Greens to stand down and simply support them. I think they would have to commit to a specific course and schedule to get that to happen.
Doug, I would think in your scenario #2 that the Liberals would jump at PR of some kind. They would be third in a minority Parliament with prospects of being badly squeezed by a polarizing electorate like they have been provincially in the western provinces.
PR would then be their best hope at salvaging a respectable number of seats.
Doug, I would think in your scenario #2 that the Liberals would jump at PR of some kind. They would be third in a minority Parliament with prospects of being badly squeezed by a polarizing electorate like they have been provincially in the western provinces.
PR would then be their best hope at salvaging a respectable number of seats.
Perhaps, but like the Alberta PCs they are bound together by the propect of power rather than principle, and even moreso than a party of principle like the NDP would have difficulty staying together under some kinds of PR. Two elections finishing third in seats might make an impression on them though, but unless it is a really poor third like last time I doubt it.
Looks like this week's EKOS will have good news for the NDP:
Just as it looked like we were setting into a three-way tie, the NDP appears to be opening up some daylight between itself and the Conservatives — who are still stuck at sub-30 — and the listless Liberals, still drifting downward in a significant erosion of their support.
Don't have an ipolitics subscription, but here's the breakdown:
NDP - 31
CPC - 29
LPC - 24.
Wow.
