Federal Government & Politics | Election 2021 FORUM POLL

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Gresto

If you're referring to my post, perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm all for taxing billionaires to the hilt (or changing the economic system such that they no longer exist), but my point is that Singh's focus on them is a myopic one; good for a soundbite. Plenty of people are obscenely wealthy while falling far short of billionaire-level affluence.

No, I'm focusing on people who insist that our economy will tank if we go after the ultra-wealthy.

Asset taxes are tough, but a land tax would be a good start.

[SpongeG]

A question about ballots and voting.

I never got my voting card in the mail but I accompanied my mom who got hers and we went to vote early last week. I was able to vote as my name is on the registered list. So the ballot I got was a blank piece of paper basically and she said write the name of the candidate on the ballot and there would be a list of the choices in the booth, I got to the booth and there was no list but she had one at her desk which she gave me after I walked back and said I don't see a list.

Usually the ballot has the names and you put the X next to your choice. Why do they have two different types of ballots?

[MonctonRad]

That sounds very strange.

I voted in an advance poll, before I received my voter registration card. I knew I would be on the list because I have lived at my current address for 20 years, so all I had to do was provide two pieces of ID (one photo ID), and I was given a regular ballot to mark with my "X"

The idea that they would give you a blank piece of paper sounds kinda illegal to me.

[casper]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

A question about ballots and voting.

I never got my voting card in the mail but I accompanied my mom who got hers and we went to vote early last week. I was able to vote as my name is on the registered list. So the ballot I got was a blank piece of paper basically and she said write the name of the candidate on the ballot and there would be a list of the choices in the booth, I got to the booth and there was no list but she had one at her desk which she gave me after I walked back and said I don't see a list.

Usually the ballot has the names and you put the X next to your choice. Why do they have two different types of ballots?

I believe that is the process that is followed when your voting in a different ridding or polling district.

University students, remote workers (e.g. lighthouse keepers, military, remote mines etc.) get to cast votes that make their way back to their permanent address.

Recent story of how they do this with lighthouses. https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/e...p-flies-ballot-box-to-27-b-c-lighthouses

[Acajack]

Yes one of my kids is living in another city now and ordered a mail-in voter kit. It's got a blank ballot.

On another note, the polling station only opens at 9:30 here and if it had been open at 7 (or any earlier time before 9:30) I would have voted by now.

Oh well.

Opening at 8 at least would be nice.

[Acajack]

BTW I understand the need for capital to keep the economy rolling and that the very wealthy are a critical source of that capital.

That said there is an ever-increasing trend of the wealthiest simply hoarding their money and not really investing it in any way. Or at least only investing a tiny portion of it.

This is not in any way beneficial to our societies - from which they have derived their wealth, let's not forget.

Obviously I am not a Marxist-Leninist so I understand it's their choice if they want to do this.

But this shouldn't be without cost.

Similar to how if you own a prime piece of land in the city the municipality will charge you somewhat punitive taxes in order to incite you to develop it.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

I agree with Hybrid247 on this one - the Conservative Party this time has done all the right things in more clearly being a centrist party and balanced alternative to the Liberals. If Canadians don't positively reinforce this shift under O'Toole (plus the votes that are lost to the PPC), the message will be that the Party actually needs to double-down on the farther right to keep that base.

I don't think the issue is O'Toole needing to strengthen his "brand" - rather, it's all about making sure the country has two reasonable centrist parties any reasonable person could choose from, to prevent the corruption, arrogance and polarisation that has set in in the Liberal Party since the 2015 win. With the shifts away from Scheer's time, I think this is a good as it gets. If it doesn't work, then we really are reinforcing hyper-polarised politics that only aims to secure one's base.

And just why should Canadians trust O'Toole that these aren't just empty promises, or that he can reign in the extreme parts of his party? The CPC are entitled to absolutely nothing from Canadians, regardless of their platform. They have to earn their votes.

The CPC shifting to a more centrist platform is good for Canada, in that it provides choice in governance, but it is good for the CPC as well. If they decide to double-down on being nuts, that's their prerogative, but they will become increasingly marginalized as they lose more and more credibility as a party capable of governing.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jamincan

The CPC shifting to a more centrist platform is good for Canada, in that it provides choice in governance, but it is good for the CPC as well. If they decide to double-down on being nuts, that's their prerogative, but they will become increasingly marginalized as they lose more and more credibility as a party capable of governing.

I understand your suspicions, but if you want a second centrist option so you can (in good conscience) have a reasonable choice at the polls so that you can occasionally chuck an arrogant and corrupt Liberal Party with an incompetent leader into the garbage heap, then you have to be willing to reward the Conservative Party for their return to sanity.

At what point do you begin to trust the party. If not this election, then when - 5 years, 10, 20???

If it becomes obvious to right of centre voters that any moderation in their viewpoints in order to gain power will bear no fruit, then any future moves to create a "big tent" movement for conservatives, red tories and blue liberals will collapse, the bad old Harperite Conservatives (or worse) will take over the right side of the spectrum, and the left of centre Liberals will be rewarded with perpetual governance.

If you think the Liberals are corrupt, arrogant and elitist now, then you ain't seen nuttin' yet.............

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by jamincan

And just why should Canadians trust O'Toole that these aren't just empty promises, or that he can reign in the extreme parts of his party?

The proof is actually in the rising support for the PPC - it's clear that those extreme parts have left the Conservative Party.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I understand your suspicions, but if you want a second centrist option so you can (in good conscience) have a reasonable choice at the polls so that you can occasionally chuck an arrogant and corrupt Liberal Party with an incompetent leader into the garbage heap, then you have to be willing to reward the Conservative Party for their return to sanity.

At what point do you begin to trust the party. If not this election, then when - 5 years, 10, 20???

If it becomes obvious to right of centre voters that any moderation in their viewpoints in order to gain power will bear no fruit, then any future moves to create a "big tent" movement for conservatives, red tories and blue liberals will collapse, the bad old Harperite Conservatives (or worse) will take over the right side of the spectrum, and the left of centre Liberals will be rewarded with perpetual governance.

If you think the Liberals are corrupt, arrogant and elitist now, then you ain't seen nuttin' yet.............

MonctonRad's points exactly.

Conversely, if one is a centrist, there is every reason to dismiss any element in the Liberal platform: there was every opportunity for them to accomplish any promise since 2015, plus of course the Liberals called the election despite no other party wanting one, and with every indication that the other parties would not have obstructed Liberal plans. To return the Liberals to power would only reinforce all the problems with the current leadership.

We're often smug about being better than the US polarised two-party system, but that is exactly where we are headed if we don't reinforce parties when they are centrist in approach. It's so much more important to vote to maintain two philosophically "normal" parties than choosing based on platform points. All those specific promises are easily broken or undone, of course. But two viable and centrist options would maintain stability in the long term.

[suburbanite]

Said I wouldn't vote for Trudeau again after he walked back his promise on election reform months after I gave him my first vote. Still plan on living up to that commitment so I'll probably be voting conservative in a district that has no chance of going blue.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

At what point do you begin to trust the party. If not this election, then when - 5 years, 10, 20???

A good starting point would be when their candidates start to reflect their purported values.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jamincan

A good starting point would be when their candidates start to reflect their purported values.

Fair enough.

I just hope O'Toole does well enough in this election to avoid a purge, and to stay around long enough to put more of a stamp on the party at the riding level. The changes will be incremental.

If however voters remain determined to punish Stephen Harper (seven years later), then O'Toole will be gone and polarized politics will return.

Is this what we want? If you truly want to support change, and to avoid US style polarized politics in this country, then vote for O'Toole. If you want a Canadian style Republican Party to rise from the ashes, then cast your ballot for JT or Singh........

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I understand your suspicions, but if you want a second centrist option so you can (in good conscience) have a reasonable choice at the polls so that you can occasionally chuck an arrogant and corrupt Liberal Party with an incompetent leader into the garbage heap, then you have to be willing to reward the Conservative Party for their return to sanity.

At what point do you begin to trust the party. If not this election, then when - 5 years, 10, 20???

When they approach moderation in good faith and not as a cynical ploy to win votes.

Their climate plan was a good example of just how much they have to twist themselves into pretzels to moderate. It's not a good look.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If it becomes obvious to right of centre voters that any moderation in their viewpoints in order to gain power will bear no fruit, then any future moves to create a "big tent" movement for conservatives, red tories and blue liberals will collapse, the bad old Harperite Conservatives (or worse) will take over the right side of the spectrum, and the left of centre Liberals will be rewarded with perpetual governance.

That means they were never truly moderate. Just wolves in sheep's clothing.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If you think the Liberals are corrupt, arrogant and elitist now, then you ain't seen nuttin' yet.............

Indeed. Which is why it sucks for Canada that the CPC is so incompetent at winning votes in the urban areas of the country.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jamincan

A good starting point would be when their candidates start to reflect their purported values.

This. I would bet that O'Toole actually polls better than his party. And I'd bet the opposite for Trudeau.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. Which is why it sucks for Canada that the CPC is so incompetent at winning votes in the urban areas of the country.

Did you forget? The urbanites just need to do a better job of understanding the values of other Canadians and start pulling their weight (see: voting Conservative).

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

The proof is actually in the rising support for the PPC - it's clear that those extreme parts have left the Conservative Party.

I don't think we have enough data on that at this point. It's obvious that a lot of PPC support derives from CPC folks departing but there are also antivaxx and antimaskers from all parties moving to the PPC's single-issue at this moment.

[Truenorth00]

I'm going to suggest that the root of the CPC's problems is just a complete inability to connect with urban and suburban women. Doesn't help that many of them think women vote for Trudeau because of his looks or some shit like that.

[electricmodes]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

At what point do you begin to trust the party. If not this election, then when - 5 years, 10, 20???

When their actions in the house of commons reflect an actual shift to the centre - voting to open up the abortion debate, voting against banning conversion therapy, voting not to recognize indigenous rights and more. They have not shown they can be trusted while sitting in opposition. Actions speak louder than words and I've seen nothing to suggest they deserve being "rewarded".

[hipster duck]

I voted Conservative in my reliably red, inner-suburban/outer-urban Toronto riding.

I was waffling between not voting at all, or writing in the name of my friend's brother, who is a Rhino candidate somewhere else, but in the end I cast my vote for the Cons. I only did this to signal to O'Toole that I appreciate his move to the centre, that it's a good direction for the CPC after 30 years of rightward drift, and that this strategy can pick up some votes, if not seats, in the GTA. The rest of his party isn't ready for this, and he won't win this election, but they should keep him around as leader and keep this overall strategy.

The other surprise of this election for me was watching Jagmeet Singh grow into more of a leader. He's not exactly Bismarck, but he's a lot more polished and well-spoken than he was in 2019. It's too bad that he didn't stick to provincial politics. If he would have been the provincial NDP leader, instead of Andrea Horvath, he might be Ontario's next premier.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by electricmodes

When their actions in the house of commons reflect an actual shift to the centre - voting to open up the abortion debate, voting against banning conversion therapy, voting not to recognize indigenous rights and more. They have not shown they can be trusted while sitting in opposition. Actions speak louder than words and I've seen nothing to suggest they deserve being "rewarded".

There is no serious movement on the part of the party establishment to interfere with abortion access, or regarding conversion therapy. At most, they might allow a free vote on a private members bill, but this is just a safety valve and "free speech" sort of thing. JT crows about a conspiracy on the part of the far right at every opportunity, but this is a red herring, and fearmongering to the nth degree. Shame on him.

As for aboriginal rights, JT has no reason to gloat or appear morally superior on this issue. At most, JT has refined the art of virtue signaling regarding reconciliation.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by jamincan

A good starting point would be when their candidates start to reflect their purported values.

It's an incremental process, and part of it is initial positive reinforcement at the election. For example, it was in 2014 that the Liberals made being pro-choice a candidate requirement. They then won in 2015. It's now a core part of the Liberal value offer. The shifts in the Conservative platform for this election similarly need to be positively reinforced.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When they approach moderation in good faith and not as a cynical ploy to win votes.

Their climate plan was a good example of just how much they have to twist themselves into pretzels to moderate. It's not a good look.

I think the mess O'Toole had to balance was what was actually necessary policy and the national consensus, and the ambivalence of many (at the time Conservative) party members. Now that the PPC appears to developing as a "home" for that element, I think the centrist moderation is taking hold - if it translates to better election performance, anyway.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I just hope O'Toole does well enough in this election to avoid a purge, and to stay around long enough to put more of a stamp on the party at the riding level. The changes will be incremental.

If however voters remain determined to punish Stephen Harper (seven years later), then O'Toole will be gone and polarized politics will return.

Is this what we want? If you truly want to support change, and to avoid US style polarized politics in this country, then vote for O'Toole. If you want a Canadian style Republican Party to rise from the ashes, then cast your ballot for JT or Singh........

MonctonRad's points again, exactly.

Originally Posted by JHikka

Did you forget? The urbanites just need to do a better job of understanding the values of other Canadians and start pulling their weight (see: voting Conservative).

Honestly though it would be something if all parties consistently had strong appeal for all voters, urban and rural. That's the whole point of a centrist approach - there's something reasonable for everyone.

Originally Posted by JHikka

I don't think we have enough data on that at this point. It's obvious that a lot of PPC support derives from CPC folks departing but there are also antivaxx and antimaskers from all parties moving to the PPC's single-issue at this moment.

Fair point, but the effect is the same - the strong the PPC gets, the more it will become the natural "home" for that element; and the more political space that that a Conservative Party and leaders should have to adopt a more centrist approach. But again, only if Canadians broadly come out to support it.