Canadian Politics Thread

Layton's also using these poll results as an excuse to talk about proportional representation again, which just goes to show that he still doesn't get it and has the math skills of a six year old. Or perhaps he hadn't noticed that the BQ has been holding 1/6 of the seats in parliament despite having 40% of the popular vote in a single province.

Tbh, I think Conservatives would love to have Canadian politics polarized between one right-wing or centre-right party and one left/labour/socialist party, as UK politics used to be. It would make the CPC one of the big two parties instead of the most right-wing party out of four parties. They'd probably win elections half the time. The Liberals were able to dominate 20th century Canada since they were the centrist party in a multi-party system.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

so if the left-of-center parties didn't split voters between them, they would end up with less representation? i do not follow.

perhaps he hadn't noticed that the BQ has been holding 1/6 of the seats in parliament despite having 40% of the popular vote in a single province.

isn't that an argument *for* proportional representation?

in ridiculous canadian election laws news, elections canada warns that it is illegal to tweet about newfoundland election results before polls close in B.C.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/21/keep-election-results-off-twitter-facebook-warns-elections-canada

Jeanne-le-Ber and Gatineau are BQ ridings fwiw.

And I'm also puzzled by what you mean about the BQ's national representation, B4rry. If we went to the extreme of total PR with the election results we've had so far, they would have had about 9% of the seats in Parliament.

so if the left-of-center parties didn't split voters between them, they would end up with less representation? i do not follow.

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely. If we only had two options, it seems more likely that the country would divide itself more evenly between them and we'd switch back and forth. As it is, I'd never vote Conservative, unless they changed pretty profoundly and became more like the old Red Tories. But that's not a problem for me since I can still choose between the Liberals and NDP and might even consider a really good BQ candidate if I were in Quebec. If we only had two major parties and I got sick of the left-wing party, I would be much more likely to switch to the Conservative party, just as Thatcher and Reagan (both of whom were much more extreme than Mulroney) were able to win over Labour or Democrat voters. The Conservative Party's positions would not even seem as extreme anymore to people. Now their positions on most issues are the most right-wing out of three or four distinct parties' positions. (When Power and Politics holds a discussion panel, for example, they always have three panelists, where the Conservative position is the most right-wing.) In a two-party system, their positions would just be one of the two available options. (US Republicans can pretty much come up with any batshit stance they want and get 'equal time' for it in the media.)

In 20th century Canada, at least from the 30s on, the Liberals were able to become dominant because: i) They could posit themselves as the moderate centre party to most voters and ii) They could form alliances with the parties on either side, especially the left party.

The Globe suggests that the NDP's gains in QC could come at the BQ's expense: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-on-track-to-win-60-seats-poll-projects/article1994856/

xpost The current system rewards parties who have strong support in fewer areas, as opposed to moderate support in a larger number of areas. This might be the NDP's current situation, if you want to believe the polls, so they might fare worse under proportional representation. Of course this is entirely speculative since it's hard to predict the exact riding by riding breakdown of votes and/or believe the polls.

If I were Layton, I'd shut my mouth about election reform and be all "Quebecers have chosen" and "Oui are hope and change" a la Obama from now until May 2 -- basically anything to distract people from the fact that his actual policies are dumb.

The federal NDP's popular vote is usually (always?) proportionally larger than its seat count. Why do you think they love PR so much? In 2008, they won 37 seats (about 12%) with 18% of the vote. In 2006, they won 29 seats (9.4%) with 17% of the vote.

I do agree that if the NDP gets any influence in the next government, they should stay as far away from constitutional reforms as possible.

xpost exactly, when you're the third or fourth place party, you complain that people aren't getting the government they deserve (if you're the NDP), but when you're the first place party, you forget about PR completely. Somehow Layton doesn't understand this.

Oh, I get what you're saying now!

I mean, he could still forget about PR after the election.:P

Also, of course, there are many Liberal or BQ voters who would vote Conservative before they'd vote NDP. (Also, especially out West, Conservatives who'd vote NDP before Liberal and vice versa, for that matter.)

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely. If we only had two options, it seems more likely that the country would divide itself more evenly between them and we'd switch back and forth. As it is, I'd never vote Conservative, unless they changed pretty profoundly and became more like the old Red Tories. But that's not a problem for me since I can still choose between the Liberals and NDP and might even consider a really good BQ candidate if I were in Quebec. If we only had two major parties and I got sick of the left-wing party, I would be much more likely to switch to the Conservative party, just as Thatcher and Reagan (both of whom were much more extreme than Mulroney) were able to win over Labour or Democrat voters. The Conservative Party's positions would not even seem as extreme anymore to people. Now their positions on most issues are the most right-wing out of three or four distinct parties' positions. (When Power and Politics holds a discussion panel, for example, they always have three panelists, where the Conservative position is the most right-wing.) In a two-party system, their positions would just be one of the two available options. (US Republicans can pretty much come up with any batshit stance they want and get 'equal time' for it in the media.)

In 20th century Canada, at least from the 30s on, the Liberals were able to become dominant because: i) They could posit themselves as the moderate centre party to most voters and ii) They could form alliances with the parties on either side, especially the left party.

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely.

It would be politically apt for the conservative party to move closer to the center in that case.

I mean, they're getting close to 40% of the vote right now in a four-party system. In the imaginary scenario we described, where the Liberal party collapsed and the NDP became the other main party in a two-party system, it's safe to assume that a significant number of the old Liberal voters would happily move over to the CPC without the party need to moderate its policies any further.

Afaict, the US Republican strategy for the last little while has been to shift the centre by taking increasingly extreme positions so that the other side will try to meet them halfway.:P Seems like that approach could potentially work as well...

(Between 35%-40% anyway... I dunno, I'm just musing.)

my big fear about an idiotic two party system is all reasonable policy consideration would be out the window. it would be two large, entrenched camps battling it out for the middle 10% or simply appealing to their own base to turn out en mass. it's already been turning into that over the last 10 years - where it's nothing but partisan bickering over inflamitory side-issues - where nuanced discussion about the difficult decisions gov't must make from time to time get ignored in favour of jingolistic soundbites and petty mud slinging.

xposts

it's still a little over 20% nationally, sund4r.

sund4r

^ when did that happen?!

(i assume you mean the NDP?)

I meant the CPC.

oh. ok yes.

obviously. sorry.

Totally agree with this btw:

my big fear about an idiotic two party system is all reasonable policy consideration would be out the window. it would be two large, entrenched camps battling it out for the middle 10% or simply appealing to their own base to turn out en mass. it's already been turning into that over the last 10 years - where it's nothing but partisan bickering over inflamitory side-issues - where nuanced discussion about the difficult decisions gov't must make from time to time get ignored in favour of jingolistic soundbites and petty mud slinging.

It's good to have a centrist party.

To defend the US system a little though, there's a broad range of opinion within each of the two parties, compared to what we typically find within our parties. Individual Congressmen are not whipped to vote the party line on issues.

think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system.

At the risk of repeating myself and just to sort out my thoughts, I guess I think this is a fallacy because of two assumptions that seem to be behind it:

i) The Liberals are in fact a left-of-centre party who have more in common with the NDP than with the Conservatives.
ii) People's voting decisions are based on the left-right spectrum.

Whether or not a party is left of centre depends of course on where you think the centre is. I've always thought of the Liberals, at least since the 80s, as a 'middle' party, borrowing ideas from either side as they see fit. The Liberal Party of the 90s was relatively socially liberal but, one could argue, the most fiscally conservative government we've had in decades. (And yes, this was a trend throughout the Western world at the time.) The Fraser Institute, who are as economically right-wing as you can get, recommends their 1995 budget as a model because Harper isn't cutting enough: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17270 Tom Flanagan, an intellectual pioneer of the Reform/CPC movement, accused the Liberals of stealing Reform economic policies. The corporate taxes we're discussing now were first introduced under the Liberals and, as the CPC never fails to point out, Ignatieff's Liberals voted for them.

The Liberals are currently running on a platform that is much closer in spirit to the NDP (or perhaps the 60s/70s LPC?) than to the CPC but their record in the Commons during the last Parliament showed plenty of support for CPC measures. As Mansbridge pointed out when he interviewed Ignatieff, Ignatieff had voted for the fighter jets and jails he is now running against.

From any polls I've seen and in my experience, there are many Liberal voters who would pick the CPC over the NDP as their second choice.

While the BQ is a genuinely social democratic party, Quebec voters’ choices can be determined by a range of factors beyond a left-right spectrum. Often they will vote for a leader who offers more self-determination to Quebec or, frankly, who offers more money. Mulroney swept Quebec. The BQ’s founder came from Mulroney’s cabinet. They currently seem to be parking with the NDP but there is no reason why a right-wing party – who would probably favour decentralization anyway – could not do well some of the time in Quebec if we had a two-party system.

Likewise, there are e.g. many Prairie or working-class ridings that switched from the NDP to Reform in the 90s. People vote according to a range of factors. Political parties come up with strategies to attract them. If you’re one of two big parties in a two-party system, it seems more likely that, by doing this, you could win half the time than if you’re at one extreme of a three- or four-party system.

at least since the 80s

Maybe as much or more so in the Mackenzie King era, actually!

This is close--but not as close as I wanted, so I've concluded that the Harper picture must look exactly like someone I went to high school with.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IG7nagJCvAU/R-ZUelEcDDI/AAAAAAAAASo/Sx41eZuWiWQ/s400/michael%25252Bsarrazin.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7g7vq7oz8bE/TDH6elA093I/AAAAAAAADY8/IqOVy98T0Uk/s1600/007_harper

I voted today! But I did not get a sticker attesting to that fact : (

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/features/votecompass/map/

This is sort of interesting. Most of the spreads of responses to the various questions are pretty predictable, but #6 surprised me. Why are Quebeckers more strongly in favour of closer economic ties to the US than other parts of the country? Is there something obvious I'm missing here?

I found it interesting (but tbh unsurprising) how Quebec ridings were the furthest left on (most) economic issues and foreign policy but also the most conservative on accommodating religious minorities or on admitting immigrants who don't speak English or French. I don't know the answer to your question though, salsa shark...

Not sure if it was the same QC ridings actually though...

Nanos regionals suggest CPC majority: http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110424-BallotE.pdf
but...
EKOS shows less than 6 points between the CPC and NDP!: http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/25/ndp-leapfrogs-liberals-to-landin-second-spot-in-astonishing-campaign-twist/

suggest CPC majority

this is terrifying!

It is but I don't know what to make of those polls. One implies a CPC majority. The other makes an NDP-led government actually plausible, despite a CPC plurality.

Ekos report: http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_april_25_2011.pdf

With the current splits, these levels of support would produce 131 Conservative seats but the NDP would have 100 seats while the Liberals would hold 62. Together, the NDP and Liberal Party would have a majority and 31 more seats than the Conservatives, as well as nearly 20 more points in popular vote. It is hard to imagine how these totals would not produce the once unimaginable outcome of a Jack Layton led coalition government deposing Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. Unless of course, Stephen Harper could convince Michael Ignatieff that the Conservatives were more appropriate political bedfellows for the Liberals.

sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit

this would be the funniest thing that ever happened

If Smilin' Jack actually sailed up the middle to take opposition (and consequently, potentially, the government), I would laugh my goddamn ass off, the way both Harper and Iggy have been carrying on.

Why do I imagine the actual results will be considerably less exciting?

dare to dream with us, mr. shit

Even if I believed those poll numbers (which I don't), I still don't see how they translate into NDP seats. What does it matter if Tory support in the Prairies drops from 60% to 50%? They'll still win nearly every seat there.

The national numbers are skewed by the numbers from Quebec, and everywhere else in the country the Tories are the clear plurality choice. Is Quebec really having a Bob Rae 1990 moment, where they're sick of elections, sick of voting for the usual parties and want to vote for the New Guys (which btw is the dumbest possible reason for changing one's vote and is exactly how we ended up with the Tories defeating the Liberals in the first place five years ago)?

everywhere else in the country the Tories are the clear plurality choice

The EKOS regionals show the CPC in third place in Atlantic Canada. Otherwise, you're right, though. I have no idea where that seat projection comes from. Quebec, BC, and blue-collar Ontario, I guess? 100 seats sounds like fantasy, however.

EKOS has been an outlier throughout this campaign, always showing the CPC lower and the NDP and Liberals higher than other pollsters.

Nanos may well be more realistic.

On the Nanos poll they are way ahead in Atlantic Canada, so yeah, I have no idea what to make of such a big difference between the two. EKOS shows that the NDP basically tripled its support in Atlantic Canada in the past ten days, which seems far outside the realm of believability IMO.

i don't think it's fair to say that the Conservatives were voted into power simply because Canadians wanted "the new guy". i could literally say that about any change in vote or gov't if you're going to apply it there.

and EKOS always seems to have the Cons behind what other polls peg them at. no idea why.
right now for seat projections i'm looking at threehundredeight.

wooo - they just updated their projections and have dropped the cons from 151 to 146!

xpost I disagree, a lot of people voted against the Liberals, not *for* the other parties, in 2004 and 2006. It's one thing to vote Conservative because you think they have the best platform for running the country, and other thing to not vote for the Liberals because they should be punished for doing such and such when they were in power.

I didn't know about threehundredeight ... interesting that for all the talk about the NDP "leading" in Quebec, they're projected to take only six seats.

And their current seat projection shows that the new parliament will look ... almost exactly the same as the previous one! Shocking, I know.