[Eug]

In fact, only 39.6% of the electorate voted for them. The conservative would have the most to lose through reform.

Chretien had three consecutive Liberal majorities. One was with less than 39.6% of the vote, and two with just barely more.

 

[dunkalunk]

Chretien had three consecutive Liberal majorities. One was with less than 39.6% of the vote, and two with just barely more.

Those were just as skewed, and only furthers my point that the voting system needs fixing.

 

[Eug]

Those were just as skewed, and only furthers my point that the voting system needs fixing.

To argue that the voting system needs changing is fine. I'm OK with it the way it is, but others believe differently and that's OK too.

However, I present this because there are simply too many Liberal whiners out there who use this as some sort of evidence that 60% of the voting public hate Harper and this is why the system should be changed. The vast majority of these people didn't complain when the Liberals had the majority (although I'm sure some of the righties did).

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

No. Look at the NDP. Come on.

 

[jn_12]

ya what we really need is less voices heard in parliament. Two party systems are horrible for democracy. You just have to look at the American system of "everything is black or white" to see just how bad that is.

The solution is electoral reform. It's fairly simple.

 

[jaycola]

I would really like to see Justin Trudeau take the reigns of the party as interim leader.

Before you all jump on that statement, I think he would attract fresh blood. The old wrinkled suits have been running this party for too long.This would be as place holder until the next leader could be selected.

Fresh ideas are needed to revive the party and that requires an influx of new liberals into the fold.
I don't see the next leader among the existing party ranks. Justin is charismatic, youthful and I liked that he didn't pander to the animal rights groups when he decided to wear fur on his Christmas card. He is assuredly untested but he has retained his seat through a couple elections and has not pushed himself to be the next leader.

As a place holder, he could refresh the party. As well it would give us an opportunity to assess his performance for consideration as leader once he does his due in the house.

 

[kEiThZ]

No. Look at the NDP. Come on.

+1

When the party's deputy leader's first foreign policy move is to suggest that the administration of our closest ally is lying and has ulterior motives, I begin to doubt that they are ready for the big time.

If the Reformer's had their share of right wing loons, the NDP is certainly not lacking in its share of lefty equivalents. Just wait till the truthers get the floor in Parliament.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=393_1213278314

Why would any serious Liberals want any part of this crowd?

 

[LAz]

+1

When the party's deputy leader's first foreign policy move is to suggest that the administration of our closest ally is lying and has ulterior motives, I begin to doubt that they are ready for the big time.

If the Reformer's had their share of right wing loons, the NDP is certainly not lacking in its share of lefty equivalents. Just wait till the truthers get the floor in Parliament.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=393_1213278314

Why would any serious Liberals want any part of this crowd?

These guys are really good, I second them! [/yes I am one of those loons]

 

[Urban Shocker]

The political centre has had a similar meltdown in Britain over the past couple of days - the Lib Dems were trounced in the local elections and the alternative vote was defeated handily in the referendum. They were punished by their own supporters for propping up the Conservatives as part of a coalition instead of pushing for Lib Dem policies, and were caught in the same bind as our useless Liberals were - failing to provide a reasonable alternative to the government. Fortunately for us, the NDP has functioned as that opposition for several years and were rewarded for it by the voters. The Tories may have edged up slightly in popular support but the real story has been the surge in the NDP vote regardless of how it has assisted the Tories in getting a majority.

 

[toraerach]

In fact, only 39.6% of the electorate voted for them. The conservative would have the most to lose through reform.

Not only do they have to fear losing control of the House of Commons, but electoral reform could lose them a substantial chunk of their base. Electoral reform would make a split between the socially progressive and socially conservative factions of the party much easier by either making a Reform-esque upstart party or a moderate centre-right party far more electable (i.e. the CHP or Progressive Canadian Party could attract enough votes to get into the house if they actually had a chance of winning seats in a proportional system). This would be bad for the Conservatives, but generally good for democracy. It would also provide them with coalition partners - even allowing a centre-right PC-like party to form a coalition with the Liberals - a government most Canadians could probably live with.

The left should also fear a split in a more proportional system, although it would provide the same benefits to the split on the right without splitting the vote. I wonder if the Conservatives could be brought around to support electoral reform if the other parties made concessions re: Senate reform.

ya what we really need is less voices heard in parliament. Two party systems are horrible for democracy. You just have to look at the American system of "everything is black or white" to see just how bad that is.

The solution is electoral reform. It's fairly simple.

Durvenger's law states that FPTP favours a two-party system. Even in Canada we've never really had more than a 2.5 party system, and if it weren't for our intense regionalisms we'd probably have wound up with a two-party system earlier. Rarely has any election in Canadian history been a three-way race for government (Ontario 1990 may be the best example of an exception, possibly also Quebec 2007). There is a silver lining for those of us who believe in a multiparty system and electoral reform - namely that when the FPTP system becomes a three-way race, the need for electoral reform becomes more evident/popular. The threshold for winning seats is substantially lowered in three-way races, and if there are enough of them, more people will wake up to the need for reform. For example, if more ridings looked like Gatineau or Welland in 2008, the idea of reform would become more popular (Richard Nadeau won Gatineau in 2008 with only 29% of the vote in that election).

 

[Eug]

Interestingly, outside of Quebec, 48% of the vote was for the Conservatives. (It was only 16% within Quebec.)

 

[jn_12]

Durvenger's law states that FPTP favours a two-party system. Even in Canada we've never really had more than a 2.5 party system, and if it weren't for our intense regionalisms we'd probably have wound up with a two-party system earlier. Rarely has any election in Canadian history been a three-way race for government (Ontario 1990 may be the best example of an exception, possibly also Quebec 2007). There is a silver lining for those of us who believe in a multiparty system and electoral reform - namely that when the FPTP system becomes a three-way race, the need for electoral reform becomes more evident/popular. The threshold for winning seats is substantially lowered in three-way races, and if there are enough of them, more people will wake up to the need for reform. For example, if more ridings looked like Gatineau or Welland in 2008, the idea of reform would become more popular (Richard Nadeau won Gatineau in 2008 with only 29% of the vote in that election).

Well first, it's Duverger.

Second, as much as one can argue that we might only have had 2.5 parties at any one time I would say this is an absurd notion in my opinion. I understand what Duverger is getting at (I was a poli sci major who focused mostly on electoral systems and reform) but the fact is the democracy is about representation and today we have 5 parties (re: voices) sitting in parliament voicing their opinion. You can't simply decimalize a party just because it might not be considered "mainstream" or have a chance of being in power. Of course, under a democracy, parliaments are supposed to act on behalf of all people, not just those voted for the governing party, so proposals from the opposition or the "fringe" parties are supposed to be considered by the government, which means that right not we have 5 parties, not 2.5. The fact that this doesn't happen with enough regularity in the past suggests another problem with our FPTP system. But, at least the voices are being heard in Parliament, which means the media can report on it and at least raise public awareness of causes that the governing party might refuse to acknowledge.

My point was essentially that as much as Duverger might point out that a FPTP systems promotes the minimum number of parties, he's not entirely correct and not only that but it's a horrible thing for any democracy. It's utterly divisive and the Americans are proving just how bad it can get. We should not be striving to follow that route by any means.

 

[adma]

Rarely has any election in Canadian history been a three-way race for government (Ontario 1990 may be the best example of an exception, possibly also Quebec 2007).

Actually, I'd think of Nova Scotia in 1998 (and ever since; but esp. 1998) as a better example. As for 1990 Ontario: it may *seem* a three-way, but the Tories were still crippled from the 1997 disaster + the federal Mulroney collapse, though there were plenty of three-ways *within* the election--otherwise, the 1975 and 1977 Davis minorities might actually have more claim to be 3-ways when it comes to "contending for government". But 1990 may be unique in Canadian history in that all three major party leaders wound up having their turn as Premier...

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, I remember those Davis years, when the Stephen Lewis NDP coulda been a contender, and the Federal scene nowadays feels quite like it. And it's interesting to note how little effect on the final result, compared to party strengths in the later polls, Harper and Iggy's last minute "reds under the beds" scaremongering-straight-out-of-the-Republican-playbook had. We've had enough Provincial NDP governments since 1975/77 for the tactic not to work much any more.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes, I remember those Davis years, when the Stephen Lewis NDP coulda been a contender, and the Federal scene nowadays feels quite like it. And it's interesting to note how little effect on the final result, compared to party strengths in the later polls, Harper and Iggy's last minute "reds under the beds" scaremongering-straight-out-of-the-Republican-playbook had. We've had enough Provincial NDP governments since 1975/77 for the tactic not to work much any more.

I don't count it as scaremongering. Regardless of how well the provincial NDP governments have done, the federal NDP platform had some gaping holes in it that Layton refused to address honestly.