Accord vs. Coalition

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Wilf Day wrote:
Certainly Mulcair has repeatedly made the point that, if Cullen's plan had been in effect in the last election, the majority of our Quebec caucus would not even have run.

Mulcair is wrong about this. Cullen's plan only involves ridings where the Conservatives are the incumbant and the NDP, Liberals or Greens are in a strong 2nd place position. The 2008 election only saw the Conservatives win 10 seats in Quebec and only 1 of those 10 seats, Pontiac, had a party other than the BQ in 2nd place. In this case the Liberals came a distant second place to the Conservatives. Since more of the 2008 NDP vote in Pontiac would likely go to the BQ instead of the Liberals, and the Liberals were a distant 2nd in Pontiac, Cullen's plan would not have even been applicable in Pontiac.

Under Cullen's plan, the 2011 election would have saw the NDP run 75 candidates in all of Quebec's 75 ridings.

Unionist

M. Spector wrote:

So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?

Local activists of various parties may agree to support the candidate on that condition. There should be flexibility in form. We would want to encourage an anti-Harper alliance, not raise partisan obstacles to one.

Quote:
Further questions arise: Why would Liberals and Greens vote for such a candidate?

So as not to split the anti-Harper vote, obviously. They would vote for such a candidate because active local people of all parties have determined that that's their best opportunity to defeat the Conservative. There are many people out there who want to defeat Harper, but the FPTP system and the multiplicity of parties doesn't facilitate that. That's the whole idea between such pre-election accords. What's the mystery here??

Quote:
What happens if the Liberals get more seats than the NDP - would the "Independent" MP sit with the Liberals if the NDP and Liberals don't form a coalition government?

You mean if Harper wins the most seats in a minority situation? Then all pressure must be put on the other parties to form a coalition. If they don't form a coalition, who cares whom the Independent "sits with"? Seating arrangements on the deck of the Titanic? What's your point? This is about Stopping Harper, and we need to do what Brigette DePape declared, which is to find every creative means to accomplish that.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the number was around 4100 yesterday when i signed the petiton.
Join 7,609 Canadians:
“I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform.

http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation

Wilf Day

epaulo13 wrote:

..the number was around 4100 yesterday when i signed the petiton.
Join 7,609 Canadians: I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform.

http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation

They may well mean "proportional representation" when they say "electoral reform." But some Liberals signing the petition may think they mean "any reform, including the Preferential Ballot." I'm not signing it until this is clarified.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Unionist wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?

Local activists of various parties may agree to support the candidate on that condition.

On what condition - that he or she runs as an "Independent" committed to joining the NDP caucus? Why wouldn't the local activists of various parties just save everyone the trouble and vote NDP, if "not splitting the anti-Harper vote" is so important to them?

My questions were directed to theleftyinvestor, whose absurd proposal prompted them, not at you. Don't try to pretend my questions came out of nowhere. 

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

M. Spector wrote:

[...] Why wouldn't the local activists of various parties just save everyone the trouble and vote NDP, if "not splitting the anti-Harper vote" is so important to them? [...]

 

Same reason that in Vancouver, Vision Vancouver(Liberal/NDP/Green) was re-elected rather than COPE(NDP) or the Green Party of Vancouver. If you want an electoral coalition to work, you tone the partisanship down, and you run on what unites you. Not everyone is excited by the concept of an NDP Majority, even if it boots out the Conservatives.

MegB

CFL

Pages

Topic locked