NDP and Liberal Merger Talk

[andrewf]

Who is to blame for the voter turnout? It was 59.1% in 2008 and 61.4% in 2011.

The Conservatives won 167 seats, or 39.6% of the vote, and that = a majority according to our current system [no matter how you wish to analyze the numbers].

Majority of seats, not majority of Canadians.

[Daniel A.]

Maybe we need a tax credit for those that vote.

[Toronto.gal]

Andrew: thanks for the information, but as a voter, I know how the Canadian system works!

I did say that the 167 seats is what gave the Conservatives a majority, didn't I?

The voter turnout was in response to Daniel's post and it meant just that, voter turnout, not Conservative turnout.

Daniel: I like the idea! [That way I could tolerate better those who don't vote but forever complain about x,y,z].

[Eder]

I'm happy that the uninformed, content citizens don't vote so that us 60% that turn off the tv and go vote can choose what is best for Canada.

[andrewf]

My original reply was to point out that a majority of Canadians did not vote Conservative in support of their hang 'em high crime policy, as claimed by Eder. Then you moved the goal posts to talking about seats won.

[dogcom]

This is one of the hard parts of our system andrewf and that is we are forced to except stuff in every party that we don't want when we vote for them. The party in who wins the election always says that the people elected them to do X,Y and Z but the majority may have only wanted X and Y but have to live with Z as part of the package. This often bothers me when politicians say we brought in Z because the majority spoke but they really didn't.

[andrewf]

Politicians will lie as much as we let them. We can at least try to not be accomplices to their deception.

[Daniel A.]

I voted for a Law and Order agenda and was happy the majority of Canadians shared my view.

I would be upset if Liberals and the NDP throw their ideology out the door just to buy an election but it wouldn't surprise me...they were ready to rule Canada with the Bloc as their partner so anything is possible.

So much for the environment Bill C-38

[realist]

Personally I think electoral reform makes much more sense than merging parties. Something akin to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system that was proposed. The two party system in the US is at the root of a lot of the "polarization" of political debate. Reality is much more nuanced than that. The only valid criticism I have heard is that MMP type systems often result in a lot of minority governments but frankly if you can't convince at least half of Parliament to vote for something, maybe its not that great an idea... And that kind of compromise might actually work if parties stopped "whipping" the vote for absolutely everything. It should not be a surprise that an MP representing a BC riding, and one representing a PEI riding may have different takes on an issue even if they are in the same party.

During the last election people bandied about the word coalition as if its a dirty word, but what they really meant was that they had strong feelings about one ore more of the parties involved. I liked to call it the "grown ups working together" option rather than the childish infighting that often results. How about we pass all the stuff that everyone agrees on, rather than using it as political capital to leverage votes on more controversial items?

It is possible for a voter to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa, but the way the rhetoric skews now there is often no party that reflects that.
The failure of our political system and representatives to accurately reflect the will of the people, and the needs of the people is part of why people are "tuning out" of politics. The other depressing fact is the number of people who can't see past the money that comes off their paycheque.

Regardless of your political leanings, I think it should be socially unacceptable to be as ignorant of our political system as many people are.

End rant

[andrewf]

Minorities are not inherently bad. They are less stable in first past the post parliamentary systems because the electoral system is ill-conditioned. If you swing a relatively small proportion of the electorate from one party to another, you can get a vastly different outcome, including the potential for outright majority. If small changes in vote share resulted in small changes in seats/power, minority governments would tend to be more stable, and parties would be more likely to work with each other to accomplish shared objectives. You could avoid a lot of the kabuki theatre of pure obstructionism.

I prefer something like STV, as it does not depend so strongly on party lists (independents have a good chance of being elected), and ensures every MP represents a geographical constituency. With MMP, you end up with two classes of MPs.