• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
"star" is kind of an opposite to "could not get elected in a riding". I don't care about leaders and other reasonably electable luminaries being dropped into ridings, where the voters still have a very specific say. I would object to party functionaries being rewarded with top slots on a party list so they can accumulate 6 (or whatever) pensionable years.
its a distinction without a difference.
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
424
Points
810
"participate"

Bow River
CON: Martin Shields -*35,435
PPC: Jonathan Bridges- 5,097
NDP: Michael MacLean-4,726
LIB: Getu Shawile-3,928
MAV: Orrin Bliss-1,362

Saint Laurent
LIB: Emmanuella Lambropoulos *-22,056
CON: Richard Serour-6,902
NDP: Nathan Devereaux-4,052
BQ: Florence Racicot-2,973
PPC: Gregory Yablunovsky-1,183

Avignon-La Mitis

BQ: Kristina Michaud *-19,776
LIB: Louis-Éric Savoie-7,095
CON: Germain Dumas-2,912
NDP: Christel Marchand-1,521
PPC: Eric Barnabé-969
FPC: Mélanie Gendron-826
Well, ya. Any of us are but a smidgeon of the 27.4Mn eligible. I suppose our individual vote might seem more impactful if we had 1000 ridings.

I'm not getting what you are saying from the three ridings cited. Are you trying to say that in each of them, the winner not only won the majority but also the popular vote. Do they get two votes in the House? Or are you saying that the losers should be reflected in a corresponding proportion of seats? If so, I'm not getting the math you're trying to represent.

One other complication of PR is the BQ. How would they apportion the popular vote since they only run candidates in - or care about - one province?
 

RangerRay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
230
Points
680
The chattering classes love to pump up PR, but anytime the people get to vote on it, they have rejected it.

Several years ago in BC, a hybrid PR/transferable vote system that retained local representation was put to referendum. I thought it sounded like a better system and voted for it, but it was narrowly defeated. Most people couldn’t understand it.

Four years later was another referendum on the same system, but the details were more fleshed out. They actually had a riding map with how many MLA’s each one received. I was shocked that rather than combine my central interior riding with the other one and having 2 MLA’s, my riding was going to encompass a quarter of the province with 7 MLA’s. There was no guarantee that my MLA would be from a community less than 3 hours drive from me. In other words, local representation was a farce under this system. This time, I voted against it and it went down to a not so close defeat.

More recently, there was a referendum on straight PR. It also went down in overwhelming defeat.

Until those in favour of electoral reform can figure out a system that maintains local representation and is simple, FPTP isn’t going anywhere.

I remember hearing years ago that most Likud voters in Israel wanted to vote Likud but not for Bibi Netanyahu. However since he was at the top of the list, he was guaranteed to get elected.

Canada is a far more diverse country than Israel, and look the dogs’ breakfast that the Knesset is!
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
Well, ya. Any of us are but a smidgeon of the 27.4Mn eligible. I suppose our individual vote might seem more impactful if we had 1000 ridings.

You could take a large part of rural alberta and mash it into one riding and not change a damn thing.
I'm not getting what you are saying from the three ridings cited. Are you trying to say that in each of them, the winner not only won the majority but also the popular vote. Do they get two votes in the House? Or are you saying that the losers should be reflected in a corresponding proportion of seats? If so, I'm not getting the math you're trying to represent.
I'm saying a dead dog could get elected for the winning parties there, so say that we participate in what amounts to FPTP party lists is farcical
One other complication of PR is the BQ. How would they apportion the popular vote since they only run candidates in - or care about - one province?
Quebec wouldn't be getting less seats, they would still be winning in regions and winning a percentage of the popular vote.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
The chattering classes love to pump up PR, but anytime the people get to vote on it, they have rejected it.
True. Using FPTP to reinforce FPTP. No shit.
Several years ago in BC, a hybrid PR/transferable vote system that retained local representation was put to referendum. I thought it sounded like a better system and voted for it, but it was narrowly defeated. Most people couldn’t understand it.
I maintain that legislature should change it, run it for 1 election and after that get people to pick the one they like best.

More recently, there was a referendum on straight PR. It also went down in overwhelming defeat.
Straight PR is garbage.
Until those in favour of electoral reform can figure out a system that maintains local representation and is simple, FPTP isn’t going anywhere.
If you use FPTP to rule on whether FPTP stays naturally you get FPTP.
I remember hearing years ago that most Likud voters in Israel wanted to vote Likud but not for Bibi Netanyahu. However since he was at the top of the list, he was guaranteed to get elected.

Canada is a far more diverse country than Israel, and look the dogs’ breakfast that the Knesset is!
I love this argument.

Look everyone at the worst case scenario and imagine it happening here.

Meanwhile

Number of general elections since 1945-2017

Norway-Proportional-19

Germany-Proportional-19

Ireland-Proportional-19

France-Winner take all-19

Finland-Proportional-20

UK-Winner take all-20

Sweden-Proportional-21

Netherland-Proportional-22

Belgium-Proportional-22

Canada- Winner take all-23

Denmark-Proportional-27

Australia-Winner take all- 28
 

RangerRay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
230
Points
680
True. Using FPTP to reinforce FPTP. No shit.

If you use FPTP to rule on whether FPTP stays naturally you get FPTP.
Not sure what you mean by this. When you have a binary “yes” “no” vote, FPTP is a perfect system.

The first referendum, while getting a majority provincially, did not get the required 60% for referenda to pass. Subsequent referenda were not even close, with a substantial majority voting against.

Voters in other provinces have also rejected PR-type systems.

In my opinion, one shouldn’t be radically changing the electoral system without giving the voters a say. They would probably see it as a cynical ploy by the governing party to rig the system in their favour.

Despite all the chin-wagging on the subject, the voters have stated loud and clear that they’re not interested.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
Not sure what you mean by this. When you have a binary “yes” “no” vote, FPTP is a perfect system.

The first referendum, while getting a majority provincially, did not get the required 60% for referenda to pass. Subsequent referenda were not even close, with a substantial majority voting against.

Voters in other provinces have also rejected PR-type systems.

In my opinion, one shouldn’t be radically changing the electoral system without giving the voters a say. They would probably see it as a cynical ploy by the governing party to rig the system in their favour.

Despite all the chin-wagging on the subject, the voters have stated loud and clear that they’re not interested.
I mean, I get it and its fine. FPTP isn't going anywhere. That's fine. I'll continue to treat my individual vote as the joke that it is. Or not vote. The system functions as designed either way.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
281
Points
910
Maybe if we didn't have first past the post I would care about voting more in line with my actual beliefs.

But we do have first past the post. My LPC candidate was always going to get between 45 and 55 percent of the vote in my riding. So I might as well have some fun with my vote, ya?
I'm glad that you consider a vote on the direction our country is going to take is such a lark that you think your vote is a joke to amuse yourself with. Tell you what. You send me your registration card every election and I'll send you a ticket for Just for Laughs.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
I'm glad that you consider a vote on the direction our country is going to take is such a lark that you think your vote is a joke to amuse yourself with. Tell you what. You send me your registration card every election and I'll send you a ticket for Just for Laughs.
Yes, it is a joke. Either the candidate in my riding wins by 21,603 votes or 21,604 votes. Oh boy, have I ever made a difference.

And if its a joke, why not get a laugh out of it? PPC to the moooon
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
One other complication of PR is the BQ. How would they apportion the popular vote since they only run candidates in - or care about - one province?

Finally their vote percentage would be accurately reflected in parliament.

They are an obstructionist party who's sole goal is the disruption of our legislative and executive branches. I would argue they are a reason our governments are so ineffective.

I never understood federal separatist parties. They should be kept at the provincial level.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
Finally their vote percentage would be accurately reflected in parliament.

They are an obstructionist party who's sole goal is the disruption of our legislative and executive branches. I would argue they are a reason our governments are so ineffective.

I never understood federal separatist parties. They should be kept at the provincial level.
Mixed Member Proportional, MMP would not see any provinces get less seats.

The regional seats, even if halfed, would likely still have have the bloc getting around 1/3 of of available seats, so around 16 as opposed to 32.

Of the PR seats allocated they would be getting 32 percent instead of the 41 percent that FPTP gets them, so 12-13.

So the bloc goes from 32 seats to 28-29

In other words, MMP doesn't kill the bloc as a political force.

It would also similarly shrink the LPC

Their regional wins would remain the the same range, so 35 seats goes to 17.5 and their PR portion would be based on their 33.2 percentage of the popular vote, so 13 seats.

The LPC goes from 35 seats in FPTP to 30-31

Biggest winners are PPC getting 1 seat via PR and the NDP getting 5 seats,4 via PR 1 via regional, and the CPC getting 12 seats, 5 via regional, 7 via PR.

Final Quebec results under MMP

LPC 31

BQ 29

CPC 12

NDP 5

PPC 1

Compared to FPTP

LPC 35

BQ 32

CPC 10

NDP 1

So MMP leaves the bloc as a force with more representation from the PPC, NDP and CPC. Tell me that isn't more fair and representative.

As for party lists, simply give the losing candidates who got the highest percentage of the popular vote in the province the they ran in the spots. There. Solved our elections.
 
Last edited:

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
FPTP is the most fair, in that it gives every candidate the same theoretical chance of election out of the gate. PR would disadvantage small parties and independents as they would likely not accumulate the required number of votes to be awarded a seat.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
FPTP is the most fair, in that it gives every candidate the same theoretical chance of election out of the gate. PR would disadvantage small parties and independents as they would likely not accumulate the required number of votes to be awarded a seat.
Of course, we wouldn't want to go from 0 independents and small parties elected under FPTP to the 0 independents and small parties elected under MMP
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
How is participating in a system where you might be successful, the same as participating in a system where you won't be successful?
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
How is participating in a system where you might be successful, the same as participating in a system where you won't be successful?
It's the same picture.

Are Independents elected in any significant numbers? Who was the last? JWR? And she was a former cabinet minister with a massive profile.

So yes, of course, let's keep the same system in place that takes the boots to actual small parties like the greens, NDP and PPC for the off chance a Independent wins a riding one of these days, making up all of 0.002 percent of Parliament.

Fair my ass.

MMP, independents can still win a local riding, it would just be harder because the ridings would be bigger. But they aren't winning right now anyways so I don't really see a difference.

The pros outweighs the cons you bring up.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
Yes, equality of opportunity is so unfair.
If you are a fan of the system that had the LPC 16k votes in the right places away from a majority government while winning just over 32 percent of the popular vote, have at it.

You're the lucky one. FPTP isn't going anywhere.

But don't give me the "think of the independents" thing, I'm not buying it. Would MMP reduce independents chances of winning? Yes. It would go from a 0.002 percent chance of seeing an independent winning a seat in parliament to 0.001 percent chance of seeing an independent winning a seat in parliament.
 
Top