Initial post-election polling thread

281 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

1.  The only region that really seemed to resent the Chrétien/Martin social safety net cuts was Atlantic Canada.  Chrétien actually gained support in some parts of the country (eg. Québec) in 1997.

2.  While it's true that the Conservatives are now united under one banner, it's also important to keep in mind that the Trudeau Liberals may be more formidable than the Chrétien Liberals.  The Chrétien Liberals needed to rely on a vote-split between Reform/Alliance & PC to win their Majorities and to win Ontario.  Trudeau was able to win Ontario, (and most of the other provinces), while facing a united Conservative party.  This is the first time since 1980 that the Liberals won a Majority without relying on a vote-split.

nicky

Debater, the words "Justin" and "thoughtful" do not co-exist easily together in the same sentence.
Gerald Butts is our real Prime Minister.

quizzical

Justin said a lot of uh's today in his press conference i guess 2 days practise wasn't enough for him to learn his lines.

hope he gets better at actually thinking. but to give him credit he looked pale and terrified in some pics.

will he be bored by 2019?

 

 

Debater

I guess you are still underestimating Justin Trudeau.

Remember what happened to Mulcair & Harper when they did that?

It's foolish to keep repeating the talking point that Gerald Butts is our Prime Minister and that Justin has to rehearse his "lines".

He has more than proved himself, and even some of his harshest critics had to admit that last month.

Seriously, the comments above by nicky & quizzical sound so ignorant.  They are one of the reasons that the NDP lost so badly this year.

quizzical

i get to have an opinion of his performance as my Prime Minister Debater no matter what you think.

he refused to do a press talk for 2 days.  what else was he doing but practising, when not getting selfies and frowning through the couple of meetings he attended, his response on the Paris attacks? hint his press conference should have been immediate not 2 days later.

btw next time you use the word ignorant in respect to me i will report you. also  it indicates just what a nasty Liberal partisan you are.

Pondering

To get back on topic....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/14/ndp-loss-still-a-win-for-p...

It may be hard going forward for the federal NDP to bring such voters home for as long as they see a return to Conservative rule as the greatest threat on their electoral horizon.

In post-referendum Quebec, voters have coalesced behind the Liberal party the better to deny the Parti Québécois a majority mandate and an opportunity to resume its efforts to achieve sovereignty.

From one election to the next, keeping the PQ out of power has become a priority for more Quebecers, often superseding most other considerations.

In Ontario, the desire of many progressive voters to not return to the days of Mike Harris’ Common Sense Revolution has contributed to the uncommonly long Liberal tenure at Queen’s Park, and has helped keep the NDP in the provincial margin.

As the Conservatives federally and in some provinces have moved further right over the past two decades, progressive voters have become more adverse to the risks of spreading their support across the non-conservative spectrum. After the Harper decade, the seeds of that fear are planted deep inside the NDP.

I do recall saying the NDP should focus on the destruction of the Conservatives as the best strategy over the long-term. Everyone put that down to partisanship but it wasn't then and it isn't now. Right wing ideology must be defeated. That shifts the centre to the left. A second stint as the official opposition would have left the NDP in a much better position.

The Conservatives are losing no time in pressing forward with attacking the Liberals from the right. It remains in the best interests of the NDP to weaken the Conservatives until they are no longer a threat rather than attacking the Liberals from the "left".

When the Liberals are attacked evenly from both sides it situates them as the moderate middle. The left and the right almost cancel each other out.

The NDP should be speaking out in support of the Liberal plan to bring in 25K refugees.

quizzical

i think the NDP should focus on keeping Liberals to account on their actions.

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

i think the NDP should focus on keeping Liberals to account on their actions.

I think the NDP should stop worrying about the Liberals and start focusing on making the NDP an attractive choice for voters.

josh

Pondering wrote:

To get back on topic....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/14/ndp-loss-still-a-win-for-p...

It may be hard going forward for the federal NDP to bring such voters home for as long as they see a return to Conservative rule as the greatest threat on their electoral horizon.

In post-referendum Quebec, voters have coalesced behind the Liberal party the better to deny the Parti Québécois a majority mandate and an opportunity to resume its efforts to achieve sovereignty.

From one election to the next, keeping the PQ out of power has become a priority for more Quebecers, often superseding most other considerations.

In Ontario, the desire of many progressive voters to not return to the days of Mike Harris’ Common Sense Revolution has contributed to the uncommonly long Liberal tenure at Queen’s Park, and has helped keep the NDP in the provincial margin.

As the Conservatives federally and in some provinces have moved further right over the past two decades, progressive voters have become more adverse to the risks of spreading their support across the non-conservative spectrum. After the Harper decade, the seeds of that fear are planted deep inside the NDP.

It appears that the NDP leadership is content with the election results, and its return to third place. And is striving to make the party as irrelevant as possible.

Misfit

Dr. Janice MacKinnon was the Minister of Finance in Saskatchewan for the NDP in 1991.

quizzical

Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i think the NDP should focus on keeping Liberals to account on their actions.

I think the NDP should stop worrying about the Liberals and start focusing on making the NDP an attractive choice for voters.

ya well i don't care what voters think at the moment.  i care what my government is doing in my name with my money, which it now happens to be the Liberals not the Conservtives.

hence why the NDP should be making sure the government is accountable to Canadians.

get used to it people are watching the Liberals closely like they should be. like the NDP should be.

mark_alfred

quizzical wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i think the NDP should focus on keeping Liberals to account on their actions.

I think the NDP should stop worrying about the Liberals and start focusing on making the NDP an attractive choice for voters.

ya well i don't care what voters think at the moment.  i care what my government is doing in my name with my money, which it now happens to be the Liberals not the Conservtives.

hence why the NDP should be making sure the government is accountable to Canadians.

get used to it people are watching the Liberals closely like they should be. like the NDP should be.

Totally agree.

Cody87

quizzical wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i think the NDP should focus on keeping Liberals to account on their actions.

I think the NDP should stop worrying about the Liberals and start focusing on making the NDP an attractive choice for voters.

ya well i don't care what voters think at the moment.  i care what my government is doing in my name with my money, which it now happens to be the Liberals not the Conservtives.

hence why the NDP should be making sure the government is accountable to Canadians.

get used to it people are watching the Liberals closely like they should be. like the NDP should be.

So say the NDP spill's Trudeau's blood for the next four years like they spilled Harper's for the last four. Who benefits?

quizzical

what are you talking about? maybe you need to rethink what you just tried to state.

Pondering

Even though the Conservatives are the official opposition the NDP should certainly stay up to date on what the Liberals are doing and how that compares to their platform and to good government.

There is a difference between that and nit-picking or predicting doom which does nothing to hold Liberals " to account" and just comes across as petty and negative especially in the "honeymoon" period.

NDP support has dropped to 12% since Trudeau was elected. That isn't an anti-harper vote, Trudeau already won a clear majority of seats. Now he has the support of a majority of Canadians including many (former?) NDP supporters.

Really I don't think it matters all that much whether or not the NDP attacks Trudeau and the Liberals. Nobody is paying attention. I hope the NDP doesn't have to be as humiliated as the Liberals were in 2011 before rethinking their approach.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Even though the Conservatives are the official opposition the NDP should certainly stay up to date on what the Liberals are doing and how that compares to their platform and to good government.

There is a difference between that and nit-picking or predicting doom which does nothing to hold Liberals " to account" and just comes across as petty and negative especially in the "honeymoon" period.

NDP support has dropped to 12% since Trudeau was elected. That isn't an anti-harper vote, Trudeau already won a clear majority of seats. Now he has the support of a majority of Canadians including many (former?) NDP supporters.

Really I don't think it matters all that much whether or not the NDP attacks Trudeau and the Liberals. Nobody is paying attention. I hope the NDP doesn't have to be as humiliated as the Liberals were in 2011 before rethinking their approach.

As Official Opposition from 2011 to 2015 they were extremely effective in not only keeping the government to account, but also in working with the government to get good policy in place (such as the removal of taxes from women's hygiene products.)  They should continue this approach.  There is nothing to rethink about this approach.  They are in opposition and should continue to be effective as they have been in the past.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Even though the Conservatives are the official opposition the NDP should certainly stay up to date on what the Liberals are doing and how that compares to their platform and to good government.

There is a difference between that and nit-picking or predicting doom which does nothing to hold Liberals " to account" and just comes across as petty and negative especially in the "honeymoon" period.

NDP support has dropped to 12% since Trudeau was elected. That isn't an anti-harper vote, Trudeau already won a clear majority of seats. Now he has the support of a majority of Canadians including many (former?) NDP supporters.

Really I don't think it matters all that much whether or not the NDP attacks Trudeau and the Liberals. Nobody is paying attention. I hope the NDP doesn't have to be as humiliated as the Liberals were in 2011 before rethinking their approach.

As Official Opposition from 2011 to 2015 they were extremely effective in not only keeping the government to account, but also in working with the government to get good policy in place (such as the removal of taxes from women's hygiene products.)  They should continue this approach.  There is nothing to rethink about this approach.  They are in opposition and should continue to be effective as they have been in the past.

Correct. There is no need to nit-pick or behave as though the Liberals are automatically intent on doing something wrong. They should also oppose the Conservatives when they present right wing arguments against the Liberals instead of siding with the Conservatives on issues such as balancing the budget.

quizzical

whose nit picking pondering?

there's no point in letting the Liberals fall into their sponsorship ways again right off the bat.

the campaign chairman telling TransCanada how to feed at the trough was a heads up and is why in part people are watching closely.

and  for many Justin voters the honeymoon is fast coming to an end. at least here in BC and it never was in AB.

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

As Official Opposition from 2011 to 2015 they were extremely effective in not only keeping the government to account, but also in working with the government to get good policy in place (such as the removal of taxes from women's hygiene products.)  They should continue this approach.  There is nothing to rethink about this approach.  They are in opposition and should continue to be effective as they have been in the past.

Correct. There is no need to nit-pick or behave as though the Liberals are automatically intent on doing something wrong. They should also oppose the Conservatives when they present right wing arguments against the Liberals instead of siding with the Conservatives on issues such as balancing the budget.

Fascinating.  Even when you agree with me, I feel like I'm being flame-baited.  It's probably just me.

Cody87

I never said the NDP should give the Liberals/Trudeau a free pass. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm merely pointing out that the focus should be on building the party into something that voters would be excited to vote for. If the anti-Liberal crowd truly believes that Trudeau is just a fresh face on the same old establishment and nothing is going to change, then the NDP should focus on reinvigorating the party so that they can own the change vote in 2019. Opposing the government should be done only on legitimate issues where there is a clear and sensible policy divide between the NDP and LPC, such as the TPP, and on any ethical issues that may arise.

Because if the NDP goes after Trudeau on illegitimate issue like the fact that, counting Trudeau, the cabinet has 16 males and "only" 15 females, or unclear technicalities like the difference between a new procurement excluding the F-35 vs. a new procurement where the F-35 won't be picked, or a nonsensical policy like cutting policies or reducing already mild stimulus to balance the budget when interest rates are at historic lows - then the NDP is just going to continue hurting itself. Save the ammunition for when it matters. In the meantime, rebuild the party.

mark_alfred

I'll be sure to email your post to Tom Mulcair so he'll know not to focus his every question on 'the cabinet has 16 males and "only" 15 females'.

Cody87

mark_alfred wrote:

I'll be sure to email your post to Tom Mulcair so he'll know not to focus his every question on 'the cabinet has 16 males and "only" 15 females'.

It's funny because you seem to think Tom Mulcair cares about either of our opinions.

mark_alfred

I emailed him.  And now I'll bet you that we'll never hear this question come from him in question period.

Debater

quizzical wrote:

and  for many Justin voters the honeymoon is fast coming to an end. at least here in BC and it never was in AB.

How is the honeymoon coming to an end in BC?  Cite your evidence, please.

And why are you going out of your way this week to assert that the Liberals are in bad shape in Western Canada when they just had their best results in the West in a generation?

JKR

Debater wrote:

quizzical wrote:

and  for many Justin voters the honeymoon is fast coming to an end. at least here in BC and it never was in AB.

How is the honeymoon coming to an end in BC?  Cite your evidence, please.

And why are you going out of your way this week to assert that the Liberals are in bad shape in Western Canada when they just had their best results in the West in a generation?

The recent Forum poll done last week had the Liberals at 61% in BC and 33% in Alberta. So the Liberal honeymoon sure seems like it is still going very strong here in BC. As well, the Liberals were above 55% in all the provinces outside of the Prairies. I can't remember the Conservatives under Harper coming close to these kinds of numbers. And I don't think the NDP/CCF have ever had these kinds of numbers. I believe the Liberals under Paul Martin had these kind of numbers before the sponsorship scandal. I think Mulroney also had these kind of high numbers at the very beginning of his prime ministership.

Cody87

JKR wrote:
I believe the Liberals under Paul Martin had these kind of numbers before the sponsorship scandal. I think Mulroney also had these kind of high numbers at the very beginning of his prime ministership.

308 wrote:
The poll gives the Liberals the support of 55% of Canadians, an enormous number that the Conservatives never managed in any poll throughout their tenure. My records only go back so far and are incomplete the earlier they go, but even back in the days of 2002 and 2003, when the Liberals faced a divided opposition and the coming Paul Martin juggernaut was poised to deliver Liberal rule for the rest of time, the party was only polling at around the 50% mark.

Paul Martin was "only" polling around 50% :P

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Bob Rae is a Liberal.

If he does nothing else, he will explain to them how stupid he was when he won in 1990 and did not bring in a statement to show what a mess Peterson had left.

This was the most serious political mistake he ever made and that is saying something given the social contract. He got to forever wear Peterson's deficit as his own. Now even if Rae did not remind the Liberals of this, the Ontario Liberals can remind them because they go the last laugh on that and never had to take credit for the deficit.

Now to be fair Rae was also hit with a recession, downloading from the federal government, suppression of spending due to the GST and horrific Free Trade adjustments. But a budget statement before any changes would have been able to show that all three were already in play when Rae took office.

I would have been shocked to see the Liberals in that context not do a statement.

But then again I was shocked that the NDP in Alberta repeated Rae's error. They will pay dearly for a generation in that province for this blunder. They will not get to pin the real outgoing deficit on the PC government and will get to wear it instead. It is a political necessity for any government taking office in difficult times to do this.

Notley didn't do this because she has no intention to end her first term in deficit. Governments generally like to announce a return from deficit into surplus when they go into elections, and it's a simple strategy that happens to work. Think Jean Chretien 1997, Ralph Klein 1997, Gary Filmon 1995, or Roy Romanow 1995 to name  a few examples. Yes, the finances are in bad shape, and the government has had to adjust its forecasts, and this can happen early on in the term. But just watch the second half of this government's mandate. In this time frame, you're going to see quarterly updates coming out with much better financial numbers than the original budget estimates, which will instill a sense that the government knows what it's doing. Come 2019, Notley will announce the deficit having been eliminated and she will run on that theme.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

There are pletny of reasons to nit pick at the LIbs; they'd do the same if they weren't in government. But, all these polls show is Candians are stilll suffereing the effects of Trudeaumainia. Just wait untill they actually start to govern. The honeymoon will end fast enough, provided the NDP stops being so damn stupid.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Bob Rae is a Liberal.

If he does nothing else, he will explain to them how stupid he was when he won in 1990 and did not bring in a statement to show what a mess Peterson had left.

This was the most serious political mistake he ever made and that is saying something given the social contract. He got to forever wear Peterson's deficit as his own. Now even if Rae did not remind the Liberals of this, the Ontario Liberals can remind them because they go the last laugh on that and never had to take credit for the deficit.

Now to be fair Rae was also hit with a recession, downloading from the federal government, suppression of spending due to the GST and horrific Free Trade adjustments. But a budget statement before any changes would have been able to show that all three were already in play when Rae took office.

I would have been shocked to see the Liberals in that context not do a statement.

But then again I was shocked that the NDP in Alberta repeated Rae's error. They will pay dearly for a generation in that province for this blunder. They will not get to pin the real outgoing deficit on the PC government and will get to wear it instead. It is a political necessity for any government taking office in difficult times to do this.

Notley didn't do this because she has no intention to end her first term in deficit. Governments generally like to announce a return from deficit into surplus when they go into elections, and it's a simple strategy that happens to work. Think Jean Chretien 1997, Ralph Klein 1997, Gary Filmon 1995, or Roy Romanow 1995 to name  a few examples. Yes, the finances are in bad shape, and the government has had to adjust its forecasts, and this can happen early on in the term. But just watch the second half of this government's mandate. In this time frame, you're going to see quarterly updates coming out with much better financial numbers than the original budget estimates, which will instill a sense that the government knows what it's doing. Come 2019, Notley will announce the deficit having been eliminated and she will run on that theme.

I hope so but her intentions are only part of the picture. The global economy as well is a factor and the success of diversifying the economy relies on more than government.

Certainly she is smart and I am not counting her out. But I still fear that the NDP will wear numbers that they did not need to wear.

AS we now know the Liberals did a budget statement -- which I think was prudent politically. Little reason not to when an outgoing government has soured the economy -- you want that on record.

josh
Debater

Interesting numbers, Josh.

Obviously they are honeymoon numbers and won't stay like that forever, but they're still pretty impressive.

Trudeau has higher approval numbers now than he did on Election Day.

Nik Nanos said that he is also seeing higher approval numbers for Trudeau than for any other leader he has ever polled.

Obviously the challenges the Trudeau Liberals will face in the months ahead will change things, but for the first time since the Chrétien years, it looks like a Liberal leader will be able to stay on top for a little while.

adma

Though interesting, too, that the Cons dropped much more from e-day than the NDP.

Debater

Yes, that's an interesting point, adma.

Perhaps an effect of losing Harper, and the new interim leader Rona Ambrose not being well-known to the public.

Hard to say.

josh
Sean in Ottawa

There is a clear mandate for Mulcair -- right?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is a clear mandate for Mulcair -- right?

I imagine that even Ann and Brad will have to admit that everything isn't peachy when the NDP reaches single digits.

quizzical

did they heavily sample AB?

Debater

National Mood Soars as Direction of Federal Government Hits Highest Levels since 2001

EKOS

December 11, 2015

[Ottawa – December 11, 2015] A year end check up on the national reception to the new Liberal government is producing nothing short of a dramatic reversal of years of torpor and division about the federal government. Confidence in the country has shot up almost 20 points to 61 per cent positive since the last read when the Harper government was sitting. More significantly, confidence in the direction of the federal government is almost as high as national direction at 58 per cent and this is the highest score for federal direction since 2001.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/12/national-mood-soars-as-dir...

Pondering

That's an interesting poll and it might provide some clues as to why Canadians are resistant to PR.

Supporters of PR say that under PR the ruling coalition represents 50%+ but that still doesn't leave to everyone having representation. It still leaves 49% or less without representation.

Trudeau's approval is at 70% so I don't think you can say the majority of Canadians don't feel represented. Mulcair's is not much lower at 60% and May has the highest approval of all at 78%.

Satisfaction with the direction of government and the country is at around 60%.

 

 

If you look at voter intention, recalling that we have entered the between election period so people aren't paying close attention, it does not echo satisfation with the leaders.

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

That's an interesting poll and it might provide some clues as to why Canadians are resistant to PR.

These polls don't guage the public's opinion on electoral systems. Polls on the public's opinion of electoral systems have shown that in general people approve of proportional representation.

I think the reason you support FPTP plurality voting is simply because FPTP plurality voting usually benefits the Liberal Party and shortchanges the NDP. That plurality voting shortchanges a particular party does not seem like a good argument in its favour.

Why is it that most of your arguments are against the NDP? What do you have against the NDP?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That's an interesting poll and it might provide some clues as to why Canadians are resistant to PR.

These polls don't guage the public's opinion on electoral systems. Polls on the public's opinion of electoral systems have shown that in general people approve of proportional representation.

I think the reason you support FPTP plurality voting is simply because FPTP plurality voting usually benefits the Liberal Party and shortchanges the NDP. That plurality voting shortchanges a particular party does not seem like a good argument in its favour.

 

Why is it that most of your arguments are against the NDP? What do you have against the NDP?

 

I think I have shared what I have against the NDP more than most people would like.

The polls I have seen are drawing conclusions that go beyond the questions asked. There have been multiple referendums on the topic in Canada and they have all lost. If "in general" people support proportional representation they don't seem satisfied with the system offered to them.

Whether or not I support FPTP has no bearing on what other people want. I disagree with the Liberal position that they can do this without a referendum although I do favor ranked balloting at the riding level.

MMP is about dividing power up between parties. I don't buy that that means people are more accurately represented.

I think that activism has turned away from the people and focused it's energies too heavily on pressuring governments and on special interest groups that do not represent the majority.

Nobody, or hardly anyone, is promoting MMP to the people. It was an even more minor point in the NDP campaign than it was in the Liberal campaign in terms of attention. The topic wasn't raised in the debates. It's being treated like some minor administrative change. The roll up the red carpet tour should have been on MMP. It would have sold better under Harper.

Here is an example of a misleading conclusion from a poll:

Question #1 asked in the Environics Research poll was:

There has been some discussion about reforming the electoral system in Canada. Some people favour bringing in a form of proportional representation, which means that seats in parliament would be apportioned according to the popular vote won by each party, instead of the current system of electing MPs from single-member ridings. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?

Strongly support: 23 per cent
Somewhat support: 38 per cent
Somewhat oppose: 15 per cent
Strongly oppose: 13 per cent
Don't know: 10 per cent

http://wilfday.blogspot.ca/2011/01/poll-results-on-canadian-public-suppo...

Only 23% strongly support. The poll doesn't explain what such a system would entail, that it would be almost impossible for a majority government to ever be elected again, that it would mean coalition governments in perpetuity.

I would be more okay with MMP if the party with the most votes still took power in the same way they do now without forming a coalition. They would have to appeal to enough reps to pass their legislation.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I would be more okay with MMP if the party with the most votes still took power in the same way they do now without forming a coalition. They would have to appeal to enough reps to pass their legislation.

Most voters may oppose the party that wins the most votes, so allowing the party that wins the most votes to assume power is not sufficiently democratic. It would make more sense to have a preferential vote to determine which party should take control of the executive branch. But this would likely often cause the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S. between the executive and legislative branches. However, I think a system where the legislative branch is elected via p,r. and the executive branch is elected via a preferential vote would be much better than our current plurality system.

Debater

December CROP federal poll for Quebec:

56% LPC

19% NDP

12% BQ

8% CPC

LPC at 51% among francophones

https://sondage.crop.ca/survey/start/cawi/Rapport%20politique%20-%20D%C3...

https://twitter.com/308dotcom/status/684832004983132164

 

josh

Abacus:  LPC 45 CPC 28 NDP 17

 

http://abacusdata.ca/the-economy-national-politics/

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I would be more okay with MMP if the party with the most votes still took power in the same way they do now without forming a coalition. They would have to appeal to enough reps to pass their legislation.

It would be the same.  If a party wins the most seats, they have first crack at government.  If they have won over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons (a majority), then unquestionably they command confidence of the House of Commons, and become government.  If they win a plurality, winning 39% of the seats, then, provided they can maintain confidence of the House to pass legislation, they can govern alone in a minority situation.  Or, if possible, they can negotiate an accord or a coalition agreement with one of the other parties.  That is always how it has been, and it is how it would remain whether or not members of the House are elected via FPTP or under a PR system.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I would be more okay with MMP if the party with the most votes still took power in the same way they do now without forming a coalition. They would have to appeal to enough reps to pass their legislation.

It would be the same.  If a party wins the most seats, they have first crack at government.  If they have won over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons (a majority), then unquestionably they command confidence of the House of Commons, and become government.  If they win a plurality, winning 39% of the seats, then, provided they can maintain confidence of the House to pass legislation, they can govern alone in a minority situation.  Or, if possible, they can negotiate an accord or a coalition agreement with one of the other parties.  That is always how it has been, and it is how it would remain whether or not members of the House are elected via FPTP or under a PR system.

There is a contradiction built into the Pondering argument: Pondering argues among other things that the FPTP is desirable becuase it leads to greater stability. Then she argues against coalitions even though that is also the effect theya have and they are negotiated and there is more accountability (including the ability to desolve them) than the hidden colation of a ranked ballot. What PR does is it places the coalition of points of view in the House where it can be re-negotiated and debated rather than in a ranked ballot wher eit is hidden. PR makes parliament more relevant in part becuase the engagment between these ideas is an ongoing thing. However, for the purpose of stability, negotiations for term coalition agreements where a number of issues are discussed and the terms of the agreement are negotiated. This is healthier than trying to ignore or to parse the meaning of the ranked ballots.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well at least the NDP seems to be back to traditional levels of support from the 13% it had earlier. Once the Libs govern like Libs, NDP support will rise. It'll sit between 20 and 25% but the number of seats it gets will depend on whehter people like Pondering and Trudeau suceed in gerry mandering the system so it alway elects the Libs.

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well at least the NDP seems to be back to traditional levels of support from the 13% it had earlier. Once the Libs govern like Libs, NDP support will rise. It'll sit between 20 and 25% but the number of seats it gets will depend on whehter people like Pondering and Trudeau suceed in gerry mandering the system so it alway elects the Libs.

I would not count on that.

The NDP has to behave like a party that is committed to social justice. If they want to be another "middle class" liberal party there is no floor minimum supprt level for the party.

With people like Stockholm saying "don't let the door hit your ass ont he way out" I might remind the NDP that with the way it is behaving, it needs the support of people like me more than I need it.

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well at least the NDP seems to be back to traditional levels of support from the 13% it had earlier. Once the Libs govern like Libs, NDP support will rise. It'll sit between 20 and 25% but the number of seats it gets will depend on whehter people like [his online fan] and Trudeau suceed in gerry mandering the system so it alway elects the Libs.

Yes. I suspect you're right.  AV (aka PBV) will likely be chosen by the Libs, since the centre party tends to more often be a second choice then do the others (in ridings where they're not first choice).  They may end up breaking the ER promise and sticking with FPTP, which wouldn't surprise me.  If they did implement PR, I would be so shocked and pleased that I might even consider voting for the Liberals.

Debater

WATCH: From orange crush to orange crash: Mulcair's popularity hits rock bottom

The Globe and Mail

Jan. 13 2016

Nik Nanos

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-from-orange-crush-t...

Pages