Canadian Election Thread

[obfuscator]

The AV debate thread is that way.

 

No point in arguing about an election you can't change, it's Britain that's having the referendum, not Canada.

 

We did have one, but it didn't receive the appropriate percentage, and was thus, shot down.

I don't remember an AV referendum in Canada :?

[The Observer]

The AV debate thread is that way.

 

No point in arguing about an election you can't change, it's Britain that's having the referendum, not Canada.

 

We did have one, but it didn't receive the appropriate percentage, and was thus, shot down.

I don't remember an AV referendum in Canada :?

 

Well, I guess I shouldn't say Canada, it's more so the provincial ones (like the one in Ontario on October 10, 2007).

[obfuscator]

The AV debate thread is that way.

 

No point in arguing about an election you can't change, it's Britain that's having the referendum, not Canada.

 

We did have one, but it didn't receive the appropriate percentage, and was thus, shot down.

I don't remember an AV referendum in Canada :?

 

Well, I guess I shouldn't say Canada, it's more so the provincial ones (like the one in Ontario on October 10, 2007).

 

Oh ok. I don't remember that one.

[The Observer]

 

Oh ok. I don't remember that one.

 

Yeah, because it wasn't hyped up as it was supposed to be and since people didn't know much about it they voted no on it. :razz:

 

Pretty much it was a second vote along with the provincial election.

[VARN]

Strange, I did not have all the parties on my ballot. Instead of the green and bloc I had something about marijuana and another party I have not heard of. I voted conservative just for a majority; I wish we could vote for the specific issues we want, pick and choose the good ideas and whoever gets voted in uses them.

[obfuscator]

Strange, I did not have all the parties on my ballot. Instead of the green and bloc I had something about marijuana and another party I have not heard of. I voted conservative just for a majority; I wish we could vote for the specific issues we want, pick and choose the good ideas and whoever gets voted in uses them.

 

If you're not in Quebec you won't have the Bloc. Also, the Green party doesn't run a candidate in every riding.

[VARN]

lol i said i was gonna vote tomorrow. i did vote today. it was pretty much predicted that NDP will overtake the liberals

 

i was at the bar when i found out the results. half of my friends didn't vote, but i know a lot of new voters (didn't vote in 2008?) who voted for NDP. Libs lost a lot of ground and i don't see them gaining it back. i wouldn't be surprised if the majority of young voters went NDP.. doesn't help the liberal platform is basically viewed as "raise taxes"

 

When I was in school the teachers took time out of the lessons to influence our vote, at the time it was vote anyone except liberals maybe they changed their message to vote NDP.

[obfuscator]

@Faux funny that the liberal platform is viewed that way yet the NDP is so popular. Their platform is basically the same but twice as worse.

[marcustullius]

Personally I don't see tax cuts benefiting anyone except those who are wealthy or higher middle class. Only thing it's going to do is put less money in the hand of the government and when people don't make a lot of money, they don't pay a lot of taxes, so tax cuts have little to no effect. This means they have to pay more for important expenditures. If it's used to stimiulate job growth, it hasn't worked in the past and won't in the future. They can just ship those jobs off to China to save a lot more money. (In fact, many large companies have asked Obama to pay MORE taxes.)

 

And it's not difficult to privatize healthcare in this country. Harper, after all, used to be a major member of one of those companies pushing for it. All you need to do is change the transfer points into tax points and the blame will be shifted onto the provinces. In a nutshell; the provinces will receive less money in transfer payments and will be forced to cut healthcare or anything else to help pay for other necessities to serve their population.

 

Tax cuts are basically DONT WORRY YOU GUYS! TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT! Which is [cabbage]. And if they try to privatize healthcare, I expect and hope that there would be some MAJOR backlash

[obfuscator]

I don't think they'll do much to healthcare. But yeah, if they do, major backlash for sure.

[The Observer]

I don't think they'll do much to healthcare. But yeah, if they do, major backlash for sure.

 

As I said, they'll push the blame onto the provinces, so it'll seem like it. And as both of me and you know, most voters in this country don't think properly before they vote. (I'm reluctant to say "stupid")

 

And it won't really matter considering it's a majority government. If the opposition parties disagree then there can be nothing done. Hell, Harper can be functionally above the law. Just start appointing judges left and right and he's got that too.

 

Although minority governments aren't really the best thing either. Just putting it out there.

[obfuscator]

 

As I said, they'll push the blame onto the provinces, so it'll seem like it. And as both of me and you know, most voters in this country don't think properly before they vote. (I'm reluctant to say "stupid")

 

Yes, the fact that quebec elected a non-french speaking woman who spent the campaign in vegas proves that, as well as the scores of people who voted for the NDP.

 

It's one thing to think the NDP have some good policies, another completely to think they can actually form a government with the knowledge and experience it takes to run a country.

 

Healthcare is practically untouchable. If serious cuts are made in any form, the backlash will be enormous.

 

And it won't really matter considering it's a majority government. If the opposition parties disagree then there can be nothing done. Hell, Harper can be functionally above the law. Just start appointing judges left and right and he's got that too.

 

Judges can't be appointed until the positions become available, just like the senate. Harper tried to change both things(to make them elected) but guess who blocked him? That's right, the liberals and NDP. The liberals even had the audacity to claim he'd broken a campaign promise by appointing senate members when it was their party forcing him to do so.

 

Harper isn't functionally above the law at all. You forget that in order for any laws to pass, he must have the majority of the vote. Sure, he can compel his party to vote with him, under threat of being kicked from caucus....but wait: that wouldn't help him much seeing as he barely has a majority at all.

[TrueBeaver]

Personally I don't see tax cuts benefiting anyone except those who are wealthy or higher middle class. Only thing it's going to do is put less money in the hand of the government and when people don't make a lot of money, they don't pay a lot of taxes, so tax cuts have little to no effect. This means they have to pay more for important expenditures. If it's used to stimiulate job growth, it hasn't worked in the past and won't in the future. They can just ship those jobs off to China to save a lot more money. (In fact, many large companies have asked Obama to pay MORE taxes.)

 

And it's not difficult to privatize healthcare in this country. Harper, after all, used to be a major member of one of those companies pushing for it. All you need to do is change the transfer points into tax points and the blame will be shifted onto the provinces. In a nutshell; the provinces will receive less money in transfer payments and will be forced to cut healthcare or anything else to help pay for other necessities to serve their population.

Have to disagree with tax cuts. They depend heavily on what the tax cut is on and the situation. At least in the US, if we lowered the top tax rates and closed a lot of the tax deduction loopholes corporations would be paying a lot more in taxes with virtually no negative effects on the middle class or poor and it would be easier to file your taxes yourself. This idea has been around for awhile but has gotten a new head of steam after the GE debacle a couple weeks back. Also, lowering the VAT (I think Canada has one?) would help stimulate spending and would help the poor more than the rich.

Also, tax cuts stimulate job growth more so than government spending. I'm not aware of the nuances of the Canadian tax system but south of the border this graph illustrates recoveries by recession. The 2001 and 1990 recessions came after bubbles burst and were slow, steady recessions. Bush 41 raised taxes and Bush 43 lowered taxes and neither helped their respective recessions. However, in recessions that start with the sharpest declines, the 1980, 1974, and 1960 recessions, all were combated with tax cuts and those are the three shortest recessions. As John F. Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Our current recession started out slow but quickly took a turn for the worse and while you can argue pumping money into the system has mitigated the recession, it certainly hasn't turned it around.

 

tl;dr: sometimes tax cuts stimulate job growth, sometimes they don't. Might as well try them.

Also privatized health care ftw.

[Sbrideau]

There is also the fact that there is 1 party on one side and 2 on the other. I do know that in my province, in a lot of regions the anti-conservative votes actually played FOR the conservatives. For example one area had 60% of votes for NDP and Liberal, while there was only 34% conservative, but the votes being too divided between Liberal and NDP, the conservative is the one that got in. That is a huge problem.

 

If you think Harper is going to do an adequate job, look at what he already did. Democracy took hits, and he is cutting the services to minorities, including French minorities accross Canada. Also, why did he go for the F-35 which cost 135M+ according to the American government, when there are some from other countries that cost much less! Also boosting the military as he does, is huge spending. When you say other parties spend a lot, so does the conservatives. They ALL do that, so it always is the same anyway.

[obfuscator]

There is also the fact that there is 1 party on one side and 2 on the other. I do know that in my province, in a lot of regions the anti-conservative votes actually played FOR the conservatives. For example one area had 60% of votes for NDP and Liberal, while there was only 34% conservative, but the votes being too divided between Liberal and NDP, the conservative is the one that got in. That is a huge problem.

 

People assume that these two parties could viably be one party and they'd get all the votes. In fact, they're two different policies for a reason. The conservative and liberal parties are actually much closer from a policy perspective than the liberals and the NDP.

 

If you think Harper is going to do an adequate job, look at what he already did. Democracy took hits, and he is cutting the services to minorities, including French minorities accross Canada. Also, why did he go for the F-35 which cost 135M+ according to the American government, when there are some from other countries that cost much less! Also boosting the military as he does, is huge spending. When you say other parties spend a lot, so does the conservatives. They ALL do that, so it always is the same anyway.

 

Of course he's spending money. Every government has to spend money at some point, but he's got a much more reasonable fiscal long term policy that will keep the defecit minimal and eliminate it completely within a few years, all without raising taxes. No such luck from the liberals or NDP.

 

I don't agree with a lot of what harper does, but I remain unconvinced that there is any party better.

[fastortoise]

Yeah, the divide between Liberals and the NDP pretty much guaranteed a conservative majority... Though I think that when Trudeau runs for PM it'll swing back to the left. Hopefully.

[marcustullius]

There is also the fact that there is 1 party on one side and 2 on the other. I do know that in my province, in a lot of regions the anti-conservative votes actually played FOR the conservatives. For example one area had 60% of votes for NDP and Liberal, while there was only 34% conservative, but the votes being too divided between Liberal and NDP, the conservative is the one that got in. That is a huge problem.

 

Some of the Ontario numbers were conservatives within 100 - 1000 votes of the NDP/Liberal, if the vote didn't split then they wouldn't have had a majority

 

 

"The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.

 

Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked."

 

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/HarperBush/

 

 

Chilling words

 

 

Can't wait for all of Harper's prisons too! Gunna need a lot for what he does!

[Sbrideau]

Here's a small read. Conservatives would be a minority if the voting system was fair.

 

http://www.fairvote.ca/en/Canadians-cheated-again-by-voting-system

[obfuscator]

That stuff always makes me laugh. If people voted for one liberal party, the conservatives wouldn't have won. They were completely free to, but their values were specific enough that it merits having two liberal parties. I don't recall many complaints about unfair voting when the Conservative vote was split between the reform and the Canadian alliance...

 

Something that wasn't mentioned is that part of the reason for the conservative success in ontario was a large number of liberals voting conservative in order to prevent an NDP government.

 

I also find it odd that those "chilling words" are from 2005.

[marcustullius]

60% of the people who voted did not vote for the ruling party. Do you see that as a system that works?

Something that wasn't mentioned is that part of the reason for the conservative success in ontario was a large number of liberals voting conservative in order to prevent an NDP government.

 

No, it was the vote being split between NDP and Libs

 

Example:

Etobicoke Centre

CON 21,661 41.16

LIB 21,635 41.11

NDP 7,731 14.89

 

Mississauga East-Cooksville

CON 18,782 39.85

LIB 18.121 38.45

NDP 8,938 18.96

 

Don Valley East

CON 14,421 36.69

LIB 13,552 34.48

NDP 9,878 25.13

 

Don Valley West

CON 22,992 42.97

LIB 22,353 41.78

NDP 6,284 11.74

 

Willowdale

CON 22,206 41.72

LIB 21,245 39.91

NDP 9,780 18.37

 

Bramlea-Gore-Malton

CON 19,907 34.44

NDP 19,369 33.51

LIB 16,401 28.38

 

Pickering-Scarborough East

CON 19,220 40.05

LIB 18,053 37.62

NDP 8,927 18.7

 

Scarborough Centre

CON 13,401 35.51

LIB 12,075 31.99

NDP 11,273 29.87

 

 

 

 

[obfuscator]

 

No, it was the vote being split between NDP and Libs

 

And also moderate conservatives voting for the conservatives instead of the NDP. It's stupid to assume that every liberal would vote for the NDP rather then the Conservatives; if this had in fact been the case the conservatives would still have a minority.

[marcustullius]

 

No, it was the vote being split between NDP and Libs

 

And also moderate conservatives voting for the conservatives instead of the NDP. It's stupid to assume that every liberal would vote for the NDP rather then the Conservatives; if this had in fact been the case the conservatives would still have a minority.

 

People aren't going to switch from one party to one that is quite different than the other (NDP/Lib -> Con instead of NDP/Lib). Why don't we just get a two party system if we aren't going to have voter reform? Pretty clear that the cons shouldn't have a majority

 

Having two opposition parties to the cons means that the vote will always be split among them. The cons will have an advantage

[obfuscator]

 

No, it was the vote being split between NDP and Libs

 

And also moderate conservatives voting for the conservatives instead of the NDP. It's stupid to assume that every liberal would vote for the NDP rather then the Conservatives; if this had in fact been the case the conservatives would still have a minority.

 

People aren't going to switch from one party to one that is quite different than the other (NDP/Lib -> Con instead of NDP/Lib). Why don't we just get a two party system if we aren't going to have voter reform? Pretty clear that the cons shouldn't have a majority

 

If you honestly think that the liberals are closer to the NDP then they are the Conservatives then you clearly need to study their policies much more. Why don't we just get a two party system? Great idea, I wonder why it hasn't happened yet? Because two parties don't accurately represent the feelings of Canadians. That's the reason the NDP exists. It's not like the moderate liberal vote is split between two parties. The two parties are completely different and have largely different followers.

 

Once again, it's worked against the cons in the past (when the conservative vote was between the reform and the canadian alliance) I don't remember hearing these complaints then.

 

EDIT: I also like the fact that we aren't restricted to two parties as it gives the fringe the opportunity to actually make some noise. If I want to start a party and run I can at basically the drop of a hat. No such luck in a two party system.

[marcustullius]

 

 

If you honestly think that the liberals are closer to the NDP then they are the Conservatives then you clearly need to study their policies much more. Why don't we just get a two party system? Great idea, I wonder why it hasn't happened yet? Because two parties don't accurately represent the feelings of Canadians. That's the reason the NDP exists. It's not like the moderate liberal vote is split between two parties. The two parties are completely different and have largely different followers.

 

 

 

 

The conservative party does not accurately represent the feelings of Canadians when they got 40% of the vote. I would rather see a NDP/Lib merger than this.

[obfuscator]

 

 

If you honestly think that the liberals are closer to the NDP then they are the Conservatives then you clearly need to study their policies much more. Why don't we just get a two party system? Great idea, I wonder why it hasn't happened yet? Because two parties don't accurately represent the feelings of Canadians. That's the reason the NDP exists. It's not like the moderate liberal vote is split between two parties. The two parties are completely different and have largely different followers.

 

 

 

 

The conservative party does not accurately represent the feelings of Canadians when they got 40% of the vote. I would rather see a NDP/Lib merger than this.

 

Which the liberal party already declared they would not do as they do not share the majority of the NDP's policies.