Canada Election 2015

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

LMAO Liberal says that NDP is talking out both sides of its mouth by allowing the country to be broken up by a 50%+1 vote in Quebec; NDP mutters that applies to Newfoundland too.

I would've thought it would be better known than that in St. John's that "52% for, 48% against" is proven to suffice to alter Canada's borders...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's no election law, nothing on Elections Canada, that says that candidates absolutely have to show up or do certain things on their campaigns. They're free to do as they wish as long as they're legal under other rules and financial stipulations.

Exactly.

There's no law that says you have to know where your riding is and be able to locate it on a map.

There's no law that says you have to have physically been in your riding at least once in your life.

There's no law that says you have to be able to speak the language of the people of your riding.

There's no law that says you can't spend the electoral campaign in Las Vegas.

Any of the above is already proven to not be an obstacle to getting elected a federal MP.

Skipping a debate REALLY pales compared to spending the campaign outside the country or not speaking your constituents' language.

[Mister F]

^Who said anything about laws? Of course there's no law requiring candidates to go to local debates. But there sure is a muzzle order from the leader that basically puts each candidate in a cacoon. Answering questions and going to debates is supposed to be about getting your party's message out and engaging with your consituents. The way politicians do in, you know, a democracy. The fact that candidates are being prevented from doing that speaks volumes about the Harper Conservatives.

The Conservatives banning their candidates from doing debates or even media interviews is shockingly anti-democtratic but par for the course for Harper. They do it for the same reason that they restrict Harper press conferences to pre-approved reporters asking pre-approved questions. Every form of communication has to be hyper-controlled and scripted, with no room for pesky debate uncovering things they don't want people talking about. They don't want their candidates to stumble their way through answers to questions from the politically engaged types who go to local debates. They don't want reporters to ask the wrong questions or dig into something they're not supposed to. You wouldn't want some loose cannon saying the wrong thing.

They show a staggering contempt for the population of this country and their base doesn't care. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger election issue.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The Conservatives banning their candidates from doing debates or even media interviews is shockingly anti-democtratic but par for the course for Harper. They do it for the same reason that they restrict Harper press conferences to pre-approved reporters asking pre-approved questions. Every form of communication has to be hyper-controlled and scripted, with no room for pesky debate uncovering things they don't want people talking about. They don't want their candidates to stumble their way through answers to questions from the politically engaged types who go to local debates. They don't want reporters to ask the wrong questions or dig into something they're not supposed to. You wouldn't want some loose cannon saying the wrong thing.

They show a staggering contempt for the population of this country and their base doesn't care. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger election issue.

Inherent feature of our party system where a MP is not a person representing constituents but rather an instrument (which shouldn't necessarily have to be a human, could be an animal or object) chosen by a riding and worth 1/338th of Parliament's votes.

For example, Quebec in 2011 fell in love for Jack Layton, so Quebec in 2011 elected Layton's potted plants candidates all over the province.

We in Canada vote for a leader and a party platform, that's how it works. Quebec actually voted for Layton last time, not for his potted plants, who honestly were total nobodies, and even if technically, it did the latter, it was really 100% doing the former.

The MP is an irrelevant party-line voting machine, it absolutely doesn't matter if they don't speak any English or French, don't know where their riding is, or like to pee in their customers' coffee mugs while they aren't around, since those qualifications or lack thereof have zero impact on their always voting in Parliament alongside their leader and party.

[flar]

It's twenty years ago now, but the MP for my hometown went against his Liberal party on the 🞵🞵🞵 registry, because it was unpopular in the riding. He didn't believe in it, and by and large, they people he represented didn't believe in it. And that's the way it should be.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by flar

It's twenty years ago now, but the MP for my hometown went against his Liberal party on the 🞵🞵🞵 registry, because it was unpopular in the riding. He didn't believe in it, and by and large, they people he represented didn't believe in it. And that's the way it should be.

What if... the party names weren't on the ballot, just the candidates' names, and they also were legally prevented from identifying publicly with any party, putting up non-neutral signs (just their name and face and a few of their ideas, no color or anything that could link them up directly with a party), etc.?

There could be a few riding-level debates with every candidate taking their own personal positions (from which you probably could deduce their party, but again, forbidden for the LPC guy to be wearing a red tie and the CPC guy a blue one)...

I'd suppose that much less people would pay enough attention to know who they want to vote for, so the net results would be that 1) the people would really be voting for a MP to represent them, first and foremost, and 2) only people somewhat interested in politics would be able to cast a vote. (People choosing at random among a bunch of first names matched with last names would approximately produce only statistical noise, they generally wouldn't be the ones with the power to decide the outcome of the riding since their votes would be pretty much spread all over.)

Edit: would kinda be like voting for a mayor (unless your city has a strong party system?), except you're voting for your MP.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by lio45

Inherent feature of our party system where a MP is not a person representing constituents but rather an instrument (which shouldn't necessarily have to be a human, could be an animal or object) chosen by a riding and worth 1/338th of Parliament's votes.

For example, Quebec in 2011 fell in love for Jack Layton, so Quebec in 2011 elected Layton's potted plants candidates all over the province.

We in Canada vote for a leader and a party platform, that's how it works. Quebec actually voted for Layton last time, not for his potted plants, who honestly were total nobodies, and even if technically, it did the latter, it was really 100% doing the former.

The MP is an irrelevant party-line voting machine, it absolutely doesn't matter if they don't speak any English or French, don't know where their riding is, or like to pee in their customers' coffee mugs while they aren't around, since those qualifications or lack thereof have zero impact on their always voting in Parliament alongside their leader and party.

The Harper style of muzzling his own candidates goes beyond party discipline. Every party requires their candidates to (publicly) hold certain views and vote certain ways in Parliament. But they also allow their candidates to engage with the public, debate their opponents, and talk to the media. They're allowed to be real people. Only the Conservatives are so obsessed with controlling the message that they hide their candidates away.

Harper when a reporter asks an unscripted question
• Video Link

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by lio45

What if... the party names weren't on the ballot, just the candidates' names, and they also were legally prevented from identifying publicly with any party, putting up non-neutral signs (just their name and face and a few of their ideas, no color or anything that could link them up directly with a party), etc.?

Personally, I would like/prefer if parties were left off of the ballots period.

I don't mind them campaigning for a party or things like that; but the ballots should list the names period, with each name in Alpha order, Last, First, same font, same everything.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

What if... the party names weren't on the ballot, just the candidates' names, and they also were legally prevented from identifying publicly with any party, putting up non-neutral signs (just their name and face and a few of their ideas, no color or anything that could link them up directly with a party), etc.?

There could be a few riding-level debates with every candidate taking their own personal positions (from which you probably could deduce their party, but again, forbidden for the LPC guy to be wearing a red tie and the CPC guy a blue one)...

I'd suppose that much less people would pay enough attention to know who they want to vote for, so the net results would be that 1) the people would really be voting for a MP to represent them, first and foremost, and 2) only people somewhat interested in politics would be able to cast a vote. (People choosing at random among a bunch of first names matched with last names would approximately produce only statistical noise, they generally wouldn't be the ones with the power to decide the outcome of the riding since their votes would be pretty much spread all over.)

Edit: would kinda be like voting for a mayor (unless your city has a strong party system?), except you're voting for your MP.

The lengths you conservatives go to defend the CPC are ridiculous. Any argument that requires you going to the opposite extreme isn't worth anything. Not everything is so black and white.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by lio45

It is? (in Ontario?)

Or were you just referring to... this thread?

Combination - it has gotten quite a bit of media attention, there's this thread, and my mother (a Conservative supporter) has brought it up several times. It seems to be an important issue to her in this election, and I just don't get why.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm not sure I agree that the CPC is being undemocratic by not allowing local candidates to debate. All "democracy" really means is that the general citizenry is making a decision on the basis of 50% +1. The only things that are really required for that are two or more options to choose from, information on the options on which to base the decision, and for the voting and vote counting to be done in a fair and accurate way. Voters have information on the CPC platform through multiple channels, including from mass media interviews that the leader participated in. Just because the party prefers to governs in a centrally focused, top-down manner and therefore to also communicate with the constituency on a national rather than a local level doesn't make it undemocratic. If you don't happen to like this centralized top down approach, you can use this information when considering your vote preference.

In a way, the CPC approach might even make it easier for voters from a democratic standpoint since they can deal just with one central party and unified platform that they know that the local candidate is going to adhere to, rather than not knowing whether the candidate will end up going with their own personal stance or towing the party line on any particular issue. Now some would argue that this makes it easier for a party to be deceptive about its message since it's keeping tighter controls on those who might give away their true intentions. But I'd say it's just as easy for the opposite to happen, in that a local candidate could end up saying something that isn't the true platform or intention of the party, either because of the stress of the debate, or because they don't have all aspects of the national platform fully memorized or understood.

Yes, it also makes the party incapable of debating local issues that are specific to that riding, but how much does a national MP really affect issues that are solely local anyway? Especially a party that operates exclusively on a national, top-down basis. THe local candidate may not be the one to make such decisions and may not have much information to add.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The lengths you conservatives go to defend the CPC are ridiculous. Any argument that requires you going to the opposite extreme isn't worth anything. Not everything is so black and white.

He wasn't making that argument to defend the CPC, he was simply brainstorming on different and potentially better ways of running our political process. Whether or not it would be a workable idea, it's certainly an interesting thought experiment.

[Stingray2004]

Was taken aback with this article in Le Journal de Montreal... which basically says that Mulcair has `Pinocchio Syndrome` and literally calls out Mulcair as a `liar`. Never would have expected that by a QC franco-phone paper. Ouch.

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/09/29/pinocchio

And according to Nanos today, Mulcair`s `Best PM` numbers continue to fall with same at 23.5% today... and trending downward.

On another note, another pollster will be reporting tomorrow and his tweet about sums it up:

Niqab is driving the election yet no one wants it to be an issue

Still find it bizarre how such an obscure issue could be driving voter intentions... esp. in QC.

[ssiguy]

Well I have said recently that I think it will be a Liberal minority government and I stand by it.

That said if I had to say there was one TRUE winner in all of this it would be Mulcair and the NDP. Yes, you did read that correctly, the NDP.

The BLOC can be nothing but depressed. Even if they get a few seats they will be completely powerless and will never regain even the slightest amount of political relevance they once had.

It's nothing but downhill for Harper. He is looking at not only losing 40 seats in a House that has an extra 31 seats but also lost his beloved majority.

Trudeau and the Liberals will be a clear winner by at least tripling the seat count and potentially forming government. He has brought the party back from the brink which was no easy task considering what Ignatief had done to it. He offended the populace, demoralized the candidates, and bankrupted the party both morally and financially. I think a lot of us underestimate just how much Trudeau has done for the party. He really has been the White Knight the Liberals desperately needed and few could have turned the party around like he has.

Still if I had to say who the real winner is in all senses of the word, it would have to be the NDP and Mulcair. Yes, the chances of them forming a government are looking slimmer as the days pass and at this point I think they would be happy just to come in 2nd place, but regardless of that, they nor Mulcair have nothing to be ashamed about.

A lot of us and political commentators said that the reason the NDP did well was only due to Quebec's late night love affair with Layton and the Liberal incompetence of getting an American Ivory Tower prof to lead the party.

Mulcair and the NDP have shown that that was no one-hit-wonder and that they really are in it for the long term..............Mulcair has cast away any talk that the NDP win was just an anomaly and he has maintained the NDP so that for the first time in it's history it truly can claim that it is no longer the "also-ran" but first amongst equals.

It may not get him the election this time but he has secured the future of the party and turned people's view of it as being nothing more than a protest vote for left-wingers to a viable optional party for governance.

In politics, elections and winners come and go but over the long term it is the NDP who have scored the biggest victory.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Guy, do you know how many spies China has in the US? That thing is probably an exact clone of the F-35. Probably won't cost $500 mil a jet though.


BTW: That Chinese plane looks more like the F-22 than the F-35.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c..._Joint_Services_Open_House_airshow_3.jpg

Absolutely. My point is that other countries (including adversaries) want what the Americans design & build. The reason for that is simple, they want the best.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Well I have said recently that I think it will be a Liberal minority government and I stand by it.

That said if I had to say there was one TRUE winner in all of this it would be Mulcair and the NDP. Yes, you did read that correctly, the NDP.

The BLOC can be nothing but depressed. Even if they get a few seats they will be completely powerless and will never regain even the slightest amount of political relevance they once had.

It's nothing but downhill for Harper. He is looking at not only losing 40 seats in a House that has an extra 31 seats but also lost his beloved majority.

Trudeau and the Liberals will be a clear winner by at least tripling the seat count and potentially forming government. He has brought the party back from the brink which was no easy task considering what Ignatief had done to it. He offended the populace, demoralized the candidates, and bankrupted the party both morally and financially. I think a lot of us underestimate just how much Trudeau has done for the party. He really has been the White Knight the Liberals desperately needed and few could have turned the party around like he has.

Still if I had to say who the real winner is in all senses of the word, it would have to be the NDP and Mulcair. Yes, the chances of them forming a government are looking slimmer as the days pass and at this point I think they would be happy just to come in 2nd place, but regardless of that, they nor Mulcair have nothing to be ashamed about.

A lot of us and political commentators said that the reason the NDP did well was only due to Quebec's late night love affair with Layton and the Liberal incompetence of getting an American Ivory Tower prof to lead the party.

Mulcair and the NDP have shown that that was no one-hit-wonder and that they really are in it for the long term..............Mulcair has cast away any talk that the NDP win was just an anomaly and he has maintained the NDP so that for the first time in it's history it truly can claim that it is no longer the "also-ran" but first amongst equals.

It may not get him the election this time but he has secured the future of the party and turned people's view of it as being nothing more than a protest vote for left-wingers to a viable optional party for governance.

In politics, elections and winners come and go but over the long term it is the NDP who have scored the biggest victory.

Scotch or Burbon tonight?

[CCF]

This country needs electoral reform....badly.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Migs

Scotch or Burbon tonight?

Care to expand on that and if so is it possible for you to do so at least pretending like you can comment using the slightest impartiality?

[Migs]

2 more Liberal candidates bite the dust. They are dropping like flies.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/cheryl-thomas-liberal-candidate-resigns-1.3251338

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Still find it bizarre how such an obscure issue could be driving voter intentions... esp. in QC.

Not bizarre at all, if you dig up my older posts you'll see I could predict (and so did Acajack, IIRC) that the issue would become a pretty big thorn for Mulcair as soon as it reared the slightest bit of head earlier in the campaign...

Mulcair's core Quebec voters are ex-Bloc voters, they are exactly the kind of voters who aren't tolerant of intolerance and who get totally rubbed the wrong way by this kind of "clean slate" Canadian-style multiculturalism where absolutely everything goes -- and for the record, they wouldn't at all have been allergic to the PQ's Secularism Charter (in fact, many of them are and remained PQ voters).