[goreckm]

It's not about the actuality of ranked ballots; it's about electoral-reform-advocacy as an alibi to spam a ballot paper w/80+ candidates. Just like you don't have to be in forceful disagreement with Just Stop Oil's cause to be in disagreement with their techniques...

I don't understand the criticism. Even of there's 800 candidates, do we really care? isn't it desirable to get more voices, parties, etc into our political system to shake things up? The current parties are completely and utterly devoid of any actual good ideas.

 

[Richard White]

I don't understand the criticism. Even of there's 800 candidates, do we really care? isn't it desirable to get more voices, parties, etc into our political system to shake things up? The current parties are completely and utterly devoid of any actual good ideas.

Vote splitting.

800 people may have good ideas but if they all split the vote the wrong person will get in.

As well, it would be chaos on election night having to count ballots and check numbers for 800 candidates.

Sometimes more isn't better. 1 party on the left or right is better than 800 candidates with similar opinions.

 

[goreckm]

Vote splitting.

800 people may have good ideas but if they all split the vote the wrong person will get in.

As well, it would be chaos on election night having to count ballots and check numbers for 800 candidates.

Sometimes more isn't better. 1 party on the left or right is better than 800 candidates with similar opinions.

In a FPTP system, that's true, but, if we make it true proportional representation, that problem goes away.

While, in our current system, I agree that 1 party on the left and 1 party on the right is better (a selfish view since I lean pretty strongly toward the left and it would ensure my desired policies would be more likely to win out), it creates traps which force people into positions they might not agree with. For example (and none of these are my political views), say I'm a fiscal conservative, but, broadly in favour of LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, etc. Or let's say the opposite, imagine I'm a very hardcore economic socialist, but want strict immigration enforcement and am extremely religious. Or, to make it more relevant to this board, will vote for whoever pledges the most money for transit and promises to build it quickly, and don't really care about anything else. Who do I vote for? No matter the choice, I'm compromising. This breeds discontent and disillusionment with the political system, especially in our world where every position can be recalled and scrutinized. It's better for the country as a whole, imho, to get broad consensus on the policies we want to move forward with.

The ballot counting I'm not worried about. Even if counting the ballots takes weeks, who cares? Is the speed of getting the results really that important? The votes are already cast we're just counting what they are, I don't know why there should be any chaos. It would probably be better as there would be no need for political junkies to stay up late into the night to find out who won.

 

[picard102]

I don't understand the criticism. Even of there's 800 candidates, do we really care? isn't it desirable to get more voices, parties, etc into our political system to shake things up? The current parties are completely and utterly devoid of any actual good ideas.

Society is devoid of good ideas. 800 or 10, no one will be elected that will change the status quo on things like the value of housing and stagnant wages.

 

[goreckm]

Society is devoid of good ideas. 800 or 10, no one will be elected that will change the status quo on things like the value of housing and stagnant wages.

There are lots of good ideas, but all of them would be detrimental to the people with money and power, so they'll never be adopted by the parties as they are.

 

[evandyk]

Hey, they're all committed to making housing more affordable, just as long as it doesn't have an impact on house prices.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In a FPTP system, that's true, but, if we make it true proportional representation, that problem goes away.

If Trudeau and Singh follow last week's example in France they'll beat Poilievre hands down. In the recent French election, in order to beat the far right party, the the left and centre parties declined to run against each other, avoiding a split of the centre-left vote.

So, the Libs and NDP look at the last two federal elections as well as recent polls. Which ever of the two parties that had in the lead in these earlier elections and in recent polls will field a candidate, the other will not. The local riding associations will not be happy, but the Cons will be wrecked in the coming election.

 

[evandyk]

The "Liberals" in the French example didn't participate in the left-wing coalition. They finished second.

 

[Northern Light]

The "Liberals" in the French example didn't participate in the left-wing coalition. They finished second.

@Admiral Beez has it right here.

The Macron Centrists weren't and aren't apart of the left-wing coalition, but they did negotiate w/same following the first round of elections and both they and the leftist group had candidates withdraw to help the other win. Though, Macron's party did have fewer withdraws than the leftists:

French elections: How the 224 candidate withdrawals have reshaped the second round

Calls for candidates not to stand in races where the RN could win have been complied with by almost everyone on the left, and to a lesser extent by Macron supporters.

www.lemonde.fr

 

[Brands]

The problem is the liberals have gone too far left. What you are seeing is the centrist liberal voters moving to the Conservatives. The Conservative are positioning themselves are a centrist party.

Another reason Justin Trudeau has to go.

 

[picard102]

The Conservative are positioning themselves are a centrist party.

In what universe is the current Conservative party positioned to the centre?

 

[Brands]

In what universe is the current Conservative party positioned to the centre?

They are pitching sensible policies. The liberals are playing class warfare with the capital gains tax hike. The Conservatives are promising a tax reform task force, that would focus
on working class tax cuts and crack down on offshore tax havens.
These are the type of policies that appeal to people who vote in the centre.

 

[adma]

If Trudeau and Singh follow last week's example in France they'll beat Poilievre hands down. In the recent French election, in order to beat the far right party, the the left and centre parties declined to run against each other, avoiding a split of the centre-left vote.

So, the Libs and NDP look at the last two federal elections as well as recent polls. Which ever of the two parties that had in the lead in these earlier elections and in recent polls will field a candidate, the other will not. The local riding associations will not be happy, but the Cons will be wrecked in the coming election.

Except that we're dealing with a two-round system, versus a single-round FPTP system. And in France's system, it was the second round of voting that allowed such decisions to be made, based upon the results of the first round--either automatically in the case of the top 2 finishers, or by way of voluntary withdrawal in cases of triangulaires. So to *really* enact a French-type system, you need a second round of voting. Or something like Aussie-style ranked balloting. It requires electoral reform, not a simple pre-agreed "accord" btw/Liberal & NDP. (In fact, the more proper analogy w/such an accord is the coalition of left forces, Socialists/Communists/Ecologists/Melenchonistes that went *into* the first round of voting--and which did *not* include the Macronistes. Indeed, it was that first round split btw/the left and the centre that allowed the Lepenistes so many first-round leads.)

And on top of that, even under Poilievre, the Conservatives don't represent the kind of far-right existential threat that the Lepenistes do. (That is, I simply *cannot* see a Le Pen-type entity winning a Toronto-St Paul's seat even in a byelection circumstance.) Though with that in mind, even in past elections when far-right was a more marginal force, it was common and typical for Socialist and Communist parties to withdraw on behalf of one another in the second round--back when the perceived opposition threat was more that of the "establishment right" than the populist far right...

 

[picard102]

They are pitching sensible policies.

Name them.

The liberals are playing class warfare with the capital gains tax hike.

The rate was higher under previous PC governments.

The Conservatives are promising a tax reform task force, that would focus on working class tax cuts and crack down on offshore tax havens.

I certainly believe they'll cut all sorts of taxes, especially for the wealthy, so they can argue they have to cut services and health transfers.

These are the type of policies that appeal to people who vote in the centre.

Not sure center is the word I'd use.

 

[Towered]

They are pitching sensible policies. The liberals are playing class warfare with the capital gains tax hike. The Conservatives are promising a tax reform task force, that would focus
on working class tax cuts and crack down on offshore tax havens.
These are the type of policies that appeal to people who vote in the centre.

Wow, you actually managed to make a post without mentioning the carbon tax. That must have taken a gargantuan level of restraint!