Post Election: Future of Canada

[Der Kaiser]

Where did I imply that Harper didn't win fairly? I'm simply pointing that until the left unites their two main parties, the conservatives are going to have a huge advantage in the general election.

 

The Liberal party and the NDP are a lot more different than you might think. For instance, the Liberals had about 8 billion in new spending outlined in their platform, while the NDP had 19 billion. For reference, the Conservatives had 6 billion. I saw the liberal party referred to as a conservative party masquerading as a left wing party. One could argue that the Conservative party is in power today because it basically made itself the new Liberal party (less social conservatism, more centrist policies). Point is there are a lot of people that tend to vote Liberal that would never dream of voting NDP (I've met a few). I think the Conservatives and Liberals are in many respects mroe similar than the NDP and Liberals are.

[thatonekid]

Can someone tell me what happened yesterday? The Libs got less than 30 seats and the BQ was sent directly to Hell!

Canada in 2015:

* The party that corporations chose will win (Conservatives), which means corporatist dictatorship.

* Less spending on services such as healthcare and more spending on war and prisons.

* Mass privatization, including of healthcare services. If your not rich, we don't care.

* Abolition of gun control.

* More environment pollution.

In other terms, it will be the same sh1t as the US.

You can see the future? Awesome.

 

But seriously, I'm not arguing you post. I just think that some people (not you specifically) need to relax a bit and see what will actually happen rather than predicting a bunch of disasters for Canada.

[Erk]

You can see the future? Awesome.

 

But seriously, I'm not arguing you post. I just think that some people (not you specifically) need to relax a bit and see what will actually happen rather than predicting a bunch of disasters for Canada.

 

Er... the explicitly stated purpose of this thread is to make predictions for what you think will happen to Canada in the wake of an historic election.

[NLengr]

Sorry you lost but the majority of us just won.

 

Math fail.

 

From Wiki: "A majority is a subset of a group consisting of more than half of its members"

 

To be accurate 39.62% of the Canadian population "won". That's the portion of people that cast a ballot who voted conservative. And to be technical only 61.4% of eligible voters cast a ballot, so it's actually only 24.3% of people who we can say with 100% certainty "won".

 

No party has received a mandate from the majority of the population as a whole. That's the disadvantage of a first past the post system much of the time.

 

I also hate the term "won" when applied to a population who voted for a party, but may not be party members.

[TarCalion]

Chill out, its not the end of the world. Sorry you lost but the majority of us just won.

 

I think that this is what gets everyone extra disappointed. Its untrue that the majority of you won. Harper and the CPC only got 40% of the popular vote. That means that the majority of Canadian voted for someone else.

 

In that sense Parliamentary Democracies are depressing. I don't know if there is a better system, but its depressing.

 

[EDIT] Oops got beat to the point. See above.

[NLengr]

I think that this is what gets everyone extra disappointed. Its untrue that the majority of you won. Harper and the CPC only got 40% of the popular vote. That means that the majority of Canadian voted for someone else.

 

In that sense Parliamentary Democracies are depressing. I don't know if there is a better system, but its depressing.

 

[EDIT] Oops got beat to the point. See above.

 

It's tough in a very large, diverse country to come up with another workable system. A system whereby number of seats is based on percentage of national vote works in small, homogeneous countries. But in a large country with differing regional interests, you run the risk of having huge population centers (ex. the GTA), receive the majority of attention and benifits because that population (and therefore number of votes) is so high in the region.

 

I think the US system is pretty good personally. A separate presidential office, a house whereby seats are distributed to the states with some respect to population, and a house whereby seats are distributed equally between states.

[lkthlttr]

Good point, but what I was aiming for was that the party with the most votes won. I should be more clear, especially since this is such a point of contention. I'm not a fan of our system either but no one has it figured out perfectly yet.

 

Some good points being made here for sure. Especially the one about voter turnout. It's hard to complain about unequal representation when 40% don't even show up to the polls.

 

The Liberal party and the NDP are a lot more different than you might think. For instance, the Liberals had about 8 billion in new spending outlined in their platform, while the NDP had 19 billion. For reference, the Conservatives had 6 billion. I saw the liberal party referred to as a conservative party masquerading as a left wing party. One could argue that the Conservative party is in power today because it basically made itself the new Liberal party (less social conservatism, more centrist policies). Point is there are a lot of people that tend to vote Liberal that would never dream of voting NDP (I've met a few). I think the Conservatives and Liberals are in many respects mroe similar than the NDP and Liberals are.

 

This is true in a way. I think that all three parties are fiscally irresponsible; it's just a matter of what they're spending the taxpayer money on. The Conservatives spend it on prisons, fighter jets, and tax cuts for oil companies. The NDP and Liberals prefer to spend it on things like education and health care. Yes there are differences between the two parties, but they aren't as great as the differences between the left leaning parties and the Conservatives on social issues. I would agree that the Liberals and Progressive Conservative parties were closer to each other than the Liberals to the NDP, but there is nothing progressive about the current Conservative party. The Conservatives have held off on their social agenda so far, because they've had a minority government and the other parties wouldn't allow them to push it. I'm fairly concerned about what they'll do now that there is no one to stand in their way legislatively.

[thatonekid]

Er... the explicitly stated purpose of this thread is to make predictions for what you think will happen to Canada in the wake of an historic election.

lol.

 

I was reading the general election thread and this one at the same time. My bad.

[surgeondude]

Math fail.

 

From Wiki: "A majority is a subset of a group consisting of more than half of its members"

 

To be accurate 39.62% of the Canadian population "won". That's the portion of people that cast a ballot who voted conservative. And to be technical only 61.4% of eligible voters cast a ballot, so it's actually only 24.3% of people who we can say with 100% certainty "won".

 

No party has received a mandate from the majority of the population as a whole. That's the disadvantage of a first past the post system much of the time.

 

I also hate the term "won" when applied to a population who voted for a party, but may not be party members.

 

 

That is such a meaningless argument. Majority is determined by number of parlimentary seats, not popular vote.

 

Using your logic, the liberals never really had a "majority" either in the 90s.

[K-Doc]

But seriously, I'm not arguing you post. I just think that some people (not you specifically) need to relax a bit and see what will actually happen rather than predicting a bunch of disasters for Canada.

 

+1 Totally agree with you!

[NLengr]

That is such a meaningless argument. Majority is determined by number of parlimentary seats, not popular vote.

 

Using your logic, the liberals never really had a "majority" either in the 90s.

 

I was addressing this specific line:

 

"Sorry you lost but the majority of us just won"

 

The poster was referring to the portion of the POPULATION that voted conservative. He stated the majority of the POPULATION "won" because they voted conservative. I pointed out that the majority of the population DID NOT support the Conservatives. In fact, no party had the support of the majority of the population.

 

The conservatives did however win the majority of seats, which, in our system, does not mean they won the majority of the popular vote.

 

I would say that: "The 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections resulted in the Liberals winning the majority of the seats, but not the majority of the popular vote.".

[Der Kaiser]

Some good points being made here for sure. Especially the one about voter turnout. It's hard to complain about unequal representation when 40% don't even show up to the polls.

 

 

 

This is true in a way. I think that all three parties are fiscally irresponsible; it's just a matter of what they're spending the taxpayer money on. The Conservatives spend it on prisons, fighter jets, and tax cuts for oil companies. The NDP and Liberals prefer to spend it on things like education and health care. Yes there are differences between the two parties, but they aren't as great as the differences between the left leaning parties and the Conservatives on social issues. I would agree that the Liberals and Progressive Conservative parties were closer to each other than the Liberals to the NDP, but there is nothing progressive about the current Conservative party. The Conservatives have held off on their social agenda so far, because they've had a minority government and the other parties wouldn't allow them to push it. I'm fairly concerned about what they'll do now that there is no one to stand in their way legislatively.

 

I am hoping that there is no secret agenda, and realistically this would be political suicide for the conservative party. I think Harper knows this, and he is not as ideological as you might think. I am bothered by the prison thing though. Anyway, this is why I hope the Liberal party is still around in four years, because it is nice to have options (bring back Paul Martin maybe?).

[colbert2011]

I am hoping that there is no secret agenda, and realistically this would be political suicide for the conservative party. I think Harper knows this, and he is not as ideological as you might think. I am bothered by the prison thing though. Anyway, this is why I hope the Liberal party is still around in four years, because it is nice to have options (bring back Paul Martin maybe?).

 

I'm still skeptical. Harper has a solid 40% base who will vote for him no matter what and are deliberately enthused by his aggressive tough on crime/build jails/military jails/ pet projects despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians disagree with these notions. Harper has been successful, in part, because he has realized that by pandering to the base, he can get a majority, regardless of what other Canadians may think. It is an unfortunate aspect of our voting system that he can get a majority.

 

With the Liberals out of the equation, his job is much easier. Furthermore, the Harper minority was the most secretive government in the history of the nation; he's unlikely to mend his ways.

 

As various authors/friends have written about Harper, he is determined, calculating, and highly ideologically driven (and occasionally pre-programmed to deliver Beatles music in an impromptu fashion).

[lkthlttr]

I'm still skeptical. Harper has a solid 40% base who will vote for him no matter what and are deliberately enthused by his aggressive tough on crime/build jails/military jails/ pet projects despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians disagree with these notions. Harper has been successful, in part, because he has realized that by pandering to the base, he can get a majority, regardless of what other Canadians may think. It is an unfortunate aspect of our voting system that he can get a majority.

 

This completely parallels the situation in the states, where the Republican party is driven entirely by their socially conservative base. One of the arguments against merging the Liberals/NDP that I always hear is that it will move us towards an American system of government, and most Canadians don't want that. What is clear is that the Conservatives are already playing by the American rules, and the left-leaning parties apparently haven't caught on to this fact yet.

 

I should say that I'm not convinced that Harper is going to start pushing the socially conservative agenda, and what DerKaiser said could in fact be the case. I hope so as well. But I'm worried that he's going to be pressured into this type of action by his most fervent supporters, who are unconcerned with political considerations, now that he has a majority.

[Erk]

Using your logic, the liberals never really had a "majority" either in the 90s.

 

They did not, and the fact that that was able to happen without significant cry for electoral reform is at least as troubling as what happened this election.

 

Para D is right in that "no one has it figured out perfectly yet", but there are many systems that are a lot better than the one we have. Our current electoral system penalises Western voters*, penalises voters who do not strongly support any one party, and penalises voters for having multiple options in their "wing". It is counterintuitive.

 

I realise there are problems with proportional representation and single transferable vote. Personally I would be quite happy just seeing true representation-by-population and alternative vote: this would not be a huge rethinking of our electoral system like PR and STV would, but it would fix things a lot. For one thing, AV would have saved us the conservative meltdown in the 90s as well as the current meltdown of the left/center (although I don't mind seeing the liberals melt down, if it leads to a rethinking of their strategy and a return to the better policies and leaders of their heyday). It would also lead to many fewer Canadians feeling as though voting was nothing more than a waste of our time... it might even cut down on all these pointless attack ads, as the strategies would by necessity shift around a little.

 

 

*And yes, a Western-favoured party won this time. It did so only by gaining seats in Ontario. If the current Cons want to stay in power they will still need to pander to the central/East provinces at the expense of the West, as has always been the case.

[kylamonkey]

[apache]

i agree with you, this just leads to the question, what would we prefer to be fiscally irresponsible on?

 

i think the funding for education could be greatly improved and am surprised that any student who is capable of attending university (perhaps standards need to be raised as well to keep "lifers" away, lol) has to incur a significant cost to attend university. I have a friend who is a prosecutor for the government who has become an alcoholic because of her mountain of student debt, I may find myself catering to aspects of my practice which pay better when I start in order to pay off my debt, which certainly doesn't serve the needs of the population since I plan on going into primary care of some sort.

 

i dont conservatives will never be able to pass their social agenda, they won a vote of apathy, and the great majority of canadians, while financially conservative, are social liberal. if the conservative party attempts to pass the policies of the reform party i have a feeling they will finnish their term as one of the most unpopular governments in recent memory, and will hand the government over to the ndp, who will be championed for vehemently criticizing any reformist social policies the conservatives try to to pass, or an ndp-liberal coalition if the ndp are not able to garner enough seats. If this happens many or all of the social reforms passed by the previous conservative government will be swiftly eliminated . Remember, as you said, the conservatives have the mandate of the house of commons, but not the mandate of their people, and many of the conservative supporters came from from the progressive conservatives, who only reluctantly amalgamated with the reform party to prevent the conservative vote splitting which lead to the chretien majorities of the 90's. financially, if the conservative aren't your cup of tea, you may have a bit on the line, but socially, if the conservatives try and push right socially, they'll have committed political suicide.

 

This is true in a way. I think that all three parties are fiscally irresponsible; it's just a matter of what they're spending the taxpayer money on. The Conservatives spend it on prisons, fighter jets, and tax cuts for oil companies. The NDP and Liberals prefer to spend it on things like education and health care. Yes there are differences between the two parties, but they aren't as great as the differences between the left leaning parties and the Conservatives on social issues. I would agree that the Liberals and Progressive Conservative parties were closer to each other than the Liberals to the NDP, but there is nothing progressive about the current Conservative party. The Conservatives have held off on their social agenda so far, because they've had a minority government and the other parties wouldn't allow them to push it. I'm fairly concerned about what they'll do now that there is no one to stand in their way legislatively.