Canadian Elections

[coboss]

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who has won 2 minority governments in the previous elections, got his majority. Needed 155 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons to have a majority. His candidates won 167 seats to seal the deal. Bloq Quebecois, the sovereignty party in Quebec, went from 47 seats down to just 4. The province swung over to support the NDP, electing some unqualified candidates over more experienced candidates. It was pretty insane, even impressive. A young lady from Ottawa (in the neighbouring province of Ontario) was running in a 98% francophone riding and can't speak French. She went on vacation to Las Vegas, never campaigned in the riding and never put up signs and still won. The official opposition, the Liberal party got decimated. They went from having a majority government (2000 election) to a minority (2004), and were official opposition after both 2006 and 2008 general elections. Now they are just in deep trouble. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff resigned, as did Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. Pretty sure that party will no longer be a factor in federal politics ever again, unless they really anger the Quebec populous. That is one of the best things that happened via this election, the destruction of the BQ; as well as the Green party leader Elisabeth May finally being elected.

167 - Conservative (Centre-Right/Right)
102 - NDP (Left)
34 - Liberal (Centre-Left)
4 - Bloc (Left)
1 - Green (Left)

Wikipedia has a great breakdown of it

[Magn]

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who has won 2 minority governments in the previous elections, got his majority. Needed 155 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons to have a majority. His candidates won 167 seats to seal the deal. Bloq Quebecois, the sovereignty party in Quebec, went from 47 seats down to just 4. The province swung over to support the NDP, electing some unqualified candidates over more experienced candidates. It was pretty insane, even impressive. A young lady from Ottawa (in the neighbouring province of Ontario) was running in a 98% francophone riding and can't speak French. She went on vacation to Las Vegas, never campaigned in the riding and never put up signs and still won. The official opposition, the Liberal party got decimated. They went from having a majority government (2000 election) to a minority (2004), and were official opposition after both 2006 and 2008 general elections. Now they are just in deep trouble. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff resigned, as did Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. Pretty sure that party will no longer be a factor in federal politics ever again, unless they really anger the Quebec populous. That is one of the best things that happened via this election, the destruction of the BQ; as well as the Green party leader Elisabeth May finally being elected.

167 - Conservative (Centre-Right/Right)
102 - NDP (Left)
34 - Liberal (Centre-Left)
4 - Bloc (Left)
1 - Green (Left)

Wikipedia has a great breakdown of it

Yes, I really hope the Harper government will mostly stay clear of its Reform roots and won't do stupid things like attack the French language in the country or the secularization of the state as those things might revitalize the BQ (and frankly, if they do something that stupid, I might not be in complete disagreement). Time will tell...

I think given their platform, an NDP vote probably made the most sense for Quebecers (given that it seems my environmental concerns seem not to be shared by most, I heard from a former college teacher that they found oil is St-Lawrence and he's pretty sure they'll drill it).

I'm really glad the Greens won a seat. Now, if they could gain some momentum and expend, they might actually get some political power in a minority government.

It is worth noting that the conservatives only got around 40% of the popular vote, but still won a majority of seats due to vote splitting.

Imho, a Liberal-NDP merger might be a desirable option if the left/center-left is to wield any sort of political power in the not so distant future.

I usually don't put a lot of weight behind what is posted on yahoo news, but I think that article is actually pretty good:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/the-case-fo...dp-merger.html

[coboss]

A merger may be the way to go, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I like how it has been Centre-left Liberals vs Centre-right Conservatives. They say that most of the country is in the centre of the political spectrum, and that if we had a merger and it was NDP (left) vs CON (right) that neither would stray too far from the middle and that would keep it moderated (as was outlined well in a Globe and Mail opinion piece). Personally, I hope it doesn't end up this way because I would rather vote for a party that represents the majority of my views (in the centre) in a multi-party system (even if there are only two powerhouse parties) than having parties merge to consolidate power and create a two party system (like the USA). I think it is ridiculous to be voting "Anything-But-****"; voting against what you don't want instead of what you believe in.
I like the thought of having minorities with the opposition moderating the policies put in place by parliament. I would rather NDP and Liberal stay separate and work as a coalition if they truly want a majority in parliament, in the future. I don't even think there will be a merger. NDP is riding high on their win, and their political styles are much to different to fit everyone conveniently under the "left". God help us if out political system mirrors the USA's (with elected senators and two party system).

[Magn]

A merger may be the way to go, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I like how it has been Centre-left Liberals vs Centre-right Conservatives. They say that most of the country is in the centre of the political spectrum, and that if we had a merger and it was NDP (left) vs CON (right) that neither would stray too far from the middle and that would keep it moderated (as was outlined well in a Globe and Mail opinion piece). Personally, I hope it doesn't end up this way because I would rather vote for a party that represents the majority of my views (in the centre) in a multi-party system (even if there are only two powerhouse parties) than having parties merge to consolidate power and create a two party system (like the USA). I think it is ridiculous to be voting "Anything-But-****"; voting against what you don't want instead of what you believe in.
I like the thought of having minorities with the opposition moderating the policies put in place by parliament. I would rather NDP and Liberal stay separate and work as a coalition if they truly want a majority in parliament, in the future. I don't even think there will be a merger. NDP is riding high on their win, and their political styles are much to different to fit everyone conveniently under the "left". God help us if out political system mirrors the USA's (with elected senators and two party system).

Unfortunately, our political system is not tailored to elect minority governments.

It can happen, but with the winner-takes-all system that applies to each riding, vote splitting is not really an option.

Remember, the Liberals and NDP have about 58% of the votes together, but because of vote splitting, they have less than half the seats.

The Conservative and Reform merging now forces the hand of their opponents to do the same.

Frankly, our system is best suited for independent candidates and less suited for dependent candidates who will always votes along party lines or get kicked out of the party.

Something has got to give somewhere.

Imho, the best alternative would be to change party dynamics to dictate what you can and cannot do with parties, but unfortunately, I don't think this will happen.

[coboss]

Something has got to give somewhere.

I agree, but I hope that change comes in the form of electoral reform.

[Fenleone]

Electoral reform wont happen in Canada as long as either the Cons or the Libs have a majority (unlikely even if they have a minority). A coalition or a 3rd party attaining power would be about the only meaningful hope for that.

The Cons do talk about electoral reform but the flavor of said reform is more in line with partisan elimiation of their competition (re: campaign financing) or senate reform requiring constitutional amendment which they are unlikely to touch (the tweeks they do talk about are focused more on ramping up the partisan elements in the senate). The Libs don't wont touch electoral reform with a "ten foot pole". That leaves a 3rd party or a coalition to meaningfully force that sort of policy onto the table (a policy that has been long overdue).

While it is true that Harper did manage to get a majority it is also noteworthy that he failed to increase his popular support by any meaningful amount. The true tale of the election simply highlights again the flaws in the first past the post system (certainly nowhere close to the first time this issue has happened it's just brought it back to the forefront).

[Magn]

Just found this on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

If you apply it for each riding, it might be a solution to vote-splitting forcing politicians to have fewer parties.

Seems like a pretty smart system to accommodate multiple parties that have overlaps in ideologies... one has to wonder why we don't work that way.

[coboss]

Not to mention plurality voting systems tend to promote two party systems, while preferential systems do not. Sure you will still have problems with not having proportional representation, but at least less votes are wasted. It is sad when voter turnout is low and the vast majority of those votes cast have no influence on the election. Luckily I voted in a close riding, else I might not have voted since it wouldn't have "mattered". I know BC, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have all looked at or held a referendum about electoral reform. All they need is a big push by big political players and we will have the electoral reform that we definitely need. I think a lack in adoption of a new system comes from not being able to settle on a suitable alternative (BC wanted a Single Transferable Vote variant, while Ontario wanted a Mixed Member Proportional Representation system). Unless the government can easily help voters understand the proposed amendments, there will be a fear of the unknown and each reform will be rejected.

[Fenleone]

The element of explaining/selling the idea of any different voting system is the one thing that in all those provinces has never been done. There are key vested interests in maintaining the status quo and they will always push strongly to derail any sort of electoral reform. To give any of the alternatives a viable chance one needs to put serious effort into explaining and promoting said alternative if you don't you will get rather low turnouts which are far too easily swayed by those entrenched interests.

Actualy putting electoral reform on the table is only step one, to give it a resonable chance you actualy need to promote/explain the system to the voting public. Also given the recent alleged importation from the US of certain dirty tricks in this past federal election one should as well look at and shore up regulations as to what various groups are and are not allowed to engage in, and perhapse more importantly enforce said regulations (I believe Ontario is looking at these regulations in their provincial sphere at the moment).