Canadian Elections

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Yesterday (May 2, 2011), elections were held here in Canada. If you're not familiar with the Canadian electoral system (or the first past the poll system, which is what we use), allow me to explain. There are multiple parties in which people can vote for. The country is divided into a large amount of ridings. The party that receives more votes than all others in that riding wins in that riding. The candidate that represented that party in that riding will then gain a seat in the House of Commons. The party with the most seats forms the government (it is just a minority government if they received less than 50% of the seats, and it is a majority government if they received over 50%) and the party with the second-most seats is the official opposition. I'm not a fan of this system myself, as a party may win a majority government even if they didn't receive the majority of the popular vote as long as they had a slightly larger percentage in most ridings. This flaw was demonstrated in this election, as I'll soon explain.

Before I continue on with how the election turned out, I'll bore you with a bit more of a back-story from before the election (mostly just information about the parties). The Conservative party led by Stephen Harper has had a minority government for half a decade after two different right-wing parties merged (something that perhaps the left-wing parties should have done as well, considering they could have formed the government if they merged, rather than the conservatives). The Liberal party led by Michael Ignatieff has been the official opposition since then (they held the government before the Conservative party). While they are called the Liberal party, I don't really consider them Liberals as they fall very close to the centre of the political spectrum. Michael Ignatieff could be considered by some to be, to quote Jack Layton, "Stephen Harper's best friend". Unfortunately, a lot of people failed to recognize for quite a while that the Liberals aren't actually liberals and I think the significant population of people who aren't that politically aware simply vote for them based on their inaccurate name. The New Democratic Party led by Jack Layton is the party which can actually be considered liberal, and they are the party which I support. Their ideology is based on social democracy, and they were responsible for introducing our universal health care system to this country. This party never received much support even after many efforts to gain attention from voters of the Liberal Party. The Green party is a party based on environmental ideology, and in the last election, despite the fact that they received 6.78% of the popular vote, they received zero seats (out of 308). The Bloc Québécois is a party based on Quebec nationalism (the province which is mostly French), and also believes in Quebec separatism. They've received quite a lot of support in Quebec for a while.

Now, I'll discuss the outcome of this election. The Conservatives formed a majority government with 167 seats (approximately 54% of the seats), with 39.62% of the popular vote (sigh... When will we finally adapt a more democratic system? i.e. Proportional representation?). While that aspect of the election is disappointing to me, here comes the good part. The Liberal party only received 34 seats, while the New Democratic Party, for the first time ever, formed the Official Opposition with 102 seats (approximately 33% of the seats) with 30.61% of the popular vote. This made me incredibly happy considering that the NDP finally gained some recognition (without resorting to ridiculous advertising campaigns based on personal attacks like the Conservatives like to do). I also immediately thought "I can't wait to see the look on Michael Ignatieff's face" considering he basically mocked Jack Layton in the televised debate that took place not too long ago, as he pretty much stated that it would be ridiculous to believe that the NDP would ever surpass the Liberal party or that it would ever form the government or the official opposition. I should also add that Ignatieff didn't even win the seat in his own riding, something that is fairly easy to do. Despite how much I wanted to see him recognize how utterly wrong he was, when I watched a speech he gave in which he stated that he would resign as leader of the Liberal party, I actually felt a bit bad for the guy. He seemed humiliated, and I didn't take too much glory in his humiliation. To continue on with the results, the Bloc Quebecois, which previously received overwhelming support in Quebec, went from having 47 seats to having 4 seats. This is obviously a significant decrease in support. Their leader, Gilles Duceppe, resigned following these results. You'll never guess where the NDP gained a lot of new support in this election... Yup, that's right, Quebec. The Green Party also gained their first seat ever in this election, which I'm glad for. I would never want them to form the government as I wouldn't want them to be responsible for everything that the government is responsible for, but I would like them to have a few seats as they do have the potential to make a good contribution to the government. I read their platform which outlined their plans when they released it, and I saw many good ideas. So I guess I'm quite pleased by the results of this election, mainly because of the sudden increase of popularity of the NDP, and I'm also somewhat displeased by the Conservative's new majority government.

[Lewis]

Thanks for the interesting info HugeFan. I was interested to find out that the election was caused by a Vote of No Confidence when the Conservatives were ahead in the polls. Looking at this election makes me think of the Strange Death of Liberal England and the rise of Labour. I'm actually shocked two party leaders lost their seats, I would've thought they'd be one of the safest seats in the country! Granted in the UK we hade the Portillo Moment, but we've never had anything that bad happen.

I'm glad the NDP has faired well. Do you think they'll press for electoral reform and what form would you like it to take??

On the bright side the NDP will now be seen as the viable alternate to the Conservatives and they're a governments mistake away from getting into power.

[Indurrago]

HugeFanOfBadReligion, what's a "riding"? And how do they decide who gets to sit in each seat for each party? Our current President in the USA is unfortunate with having the opposing Republican Party as a majority in the Senate(approves all the laws).

[i_like_1981]

I believe a "riding" over in Canada is the equivalent of what we here in Britain call a "constituency" (just a guess). I don't know what the American equivalent is, though - maybe it's a position like a Governor or Senator. I don't know for sure.

Tomorrow we're having a referendum on something called the AV (Alternative Vote) over here in Britain and I intend to vote "No" on it, seeing as how I'm a firm believer in "one vote, one person" and this new system, if it passes, will probably lead to less clear decisions and more coalitions and hung parliaments, which people evidently don't like given what I've been hearing about the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition this last year. I've noticed that a lot of people voting "Yes" for AV are only doing it to spite the Conservatives (our current Prime Minister David Cameron opposes it). It really discredits the AV supporters with good reasons for voting Yes when a load of bloody spoilt and sore voters just want to vote "Yes" to spite their prime minister and nothing else. Plus, I don't know how Britain can really be declared "undemocratic" at all when millions of people around the world have to live under dictatorships with no meaningful vote at all, and also have to fear serious retributions if they criticise their government. Simply put, I believe that the man with the most votes should win and that should be that. Complicating the voting system won't make anything more "democratic".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[Indurrago]

I believe a "riding" over in Canada is the equivalent of what we here in Britain call a "constituency" (just a guess). I don't know what the American equivalent is, though - maybe it's a position like a Governor or Senator. I don't know for sure.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yeah you were right, its a constituency or electoral district.

Simply put, I believe that the man with the most votes should win and that should be that. Complicating the voting system won't make anything more "democratic".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yeah we call that the popular vote here with government positions on the local and state levels. The Presidential election notoriously has it but it really is has no effect on who becomes president. It's more like a nice pat-on-the-back to make us Americans feel like we actually have power over who the new president will be when its actually the electoral college(chosen representatives) who do actually chose in their own seperate vote called the electoral vote. You need like majority of electoral votes(currently 270) to win the presidency. So if you're wondering if there's been Presidential elections where people have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, the answer is a big YES. That's why we had Bush Jr. the first time. Ironically if you try to vote in the popular vote twice they put you in prison for 4 years. Yeah its wrong but it doesn't do shit either way! There's been attempts abolish the electoral college in the past but to no avail. So when I hear the comment "Hey we didn't vote for (insert a President's name)!" I feel like slapping my head or theirs because even if they did or did not it really was not up to that person or the person they are aiming the remark to unless they were part of the electoral college to begin with. And if you already knew all this then damn, my bad. LOL.

[Lewis]

I believe a "riding" over in Canada is the equivalent of what we here in Britain call a "constituency" (just a guess). I don't know what the American equivalent is, though - maybe it's a position like a Governor or Senator. I don't know for sure.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yeah you were right, its a constituency or electoral district.

Simply put, I believe that the man with the most votes should win and that should be that. Complicating the voting system won't make anything more "democratic".

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yeah we call that the popular vote here with government positions on the local and state levels. The Presidential election notoriously has it but it really is has no effect on who becomes president. It's more like a nice pat-on-the-back to make us Americans feel like we actually have power over who the new president will be when its actually the electoral college(chosen representatives) who do actually chose in their own seperate vote called the electoral vote. You need like majority of electoral votes(currently 270) to win the presidency. So if you're wondering if there's been Presidential elections where people have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, the answer is a big YES. That's why we had Bush Jr. the first time. Ironically if you try to vote in the popular vote twice they put you in prison for 4 years. Yeah its wrong but it doesn't do shit either way! There's been attempts abolish the electoral college in the past but to no avail. So when I hear the comment "Hey we didn't vote for (insert a President's name)!" I feel like slapping my head or theirs because even if they did or did not it really was not up to that person or the person they are aiming the remark to unless they were part of the electoral college to begin with. And if you already knew all this then damn, my bad. LOL.

That's a bit like the UK where we vote for our MPs and the party with the largest number of MPs forms a government, although we got a hung parliament last year so the Lib Dems and the Tories had to form a coalition to govern.

Since 1945 there have been only two elections where the party with the smallest vote formed a government which happen with Churchill in 1951 and Wilson in the Feb. 1974 election.

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

I'm glad the NDP has faired well. Do you think they'll press for electoral reform and what form would you like it to take??

On the bright side the NDP will now be seen as the viable alternate to the Conservatives and they're a governments mistake away from getting into power.

I think the NDP will do what they can for electoral reform, in fact, electoral reform is one of the points Jack Layton mentioned in the televised debate. I'd prefer proportional representation over first past the post. Proportional representation seems to be what most people who want electoral reform over here want. The only problem though is that I don't see electoral reform happening any time soon due to the Conservative majority. With a Conservative majority, none of the other parties really have any power as the conservatives don't have to gain the support of other parties to pass or reject bills. This means electoral reform likely won't happen any time soon because both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have always supported the first past the post system due to the fact that those two parties have been the only two parties to form the government, and they want to keep it that way. FPTP allows those parties to gain a much larger percentage of the seats than they percentage of the popular vote they received, so I don't see electoral reform happening until the Conservatives are at least no longer a majority. However, I imagine it could be possible that the NDP, now much more prominent than ever before, could bring electoral reform to the attention of the public due to the support they've suddenly gained, and if the public becomes aware of how undemocratic our electoral system is, a larger amount of people could raise their voice about the subject. Thus, if the Conservatives didn't do as the public wanted by reforming the electoral system, they would lose support and the results wouldn't be in their favour by the next election.

[ChrisOH]

Yeah we call that the popular vote here with government positions on the local and state levels. The Presidential election notoriously has it but it really is has no effect on who becomes president. It's more like a nice pat-on-the-back to make us Americans feel like we actually have power over who the new president will be when its actually the electoral college(chosen representatives) who do actually chose in their own seperate vote called the electoral vote. You need like majority of electoral votes(currently 270) to win the presidency. So if you're wondering if there's been Presidential elections where people have won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, the answer is a big YES. That's why we had Bush Jr. the first time. Ironically if you try to vote in the popular vote twice they put you in prison for 4 years. Yeah its wrong but it doesn't do shit either way! There's been attempts abolish the electoral college in the past but to no avail. So when I hear the comment "Hey we didn't vote for (insert a President's name)!" I feel like slapping my head or theirs because even if they did or did not it really was not up to that person or the person they are aiming the remark to unless they were part of the electoral college to begin with. And if you already knew all this then damn, my bad. LOL.

Hello Indurrago!

The electoral college was established by the U.S. Constitution at a time when communication and travel were far more difficult than today. Because of the difficulties in tabulating individual votes for President from all over the country, "electors" were designated to travel to Washington, D.C., and vote for whomever their state selected. The number of electors was and is the total of that state's representatives and senators. This is how a candidate can win the "popular vote" and still lose the Presidency -- winning by one vote in a state with a large number of electors (i.e. the most populous states) is worth more than winning by a million in a small-number-of-electors state, since winning the state wins you all of the electors from that state as well. So yes, there's an inequality in the value of each person's vote. It's an imperfect system, but probably the best that could be done at the time the Constitution was written.

Now, however, it's an anachronism. I've heard of some alternate proposals, such as splitting the electors of each state by percentage of votes cast, or eliminating the electoral college altogether. Personally, I'd go with the complete elimination of it, since we now can tabulate votes almost instantaneously and without being personally present in D.C. However, to do this would require amending the Constitution, which isn't politically easy to do.

My apologies to Indurrago and other Americans to whom this may be "old hat"; I'm elaborating for the information of our non-American members. In short, I think the electoral college was started with good intentions, but it's well outlived its usefulness.

[Lewis]

I'm glad the NDP has faired well. Do you think they'll press for electoral reform and what form would you like it to take??

On the bright side the NDP will now be seen as the viable alternate to the Conservatives and they're a governments mistake away from getting into power.

I think the NDP will do what they can for electoral reform, in fact, electoral reform is one of the points Jack Layton mentioned in the televised debate. I'd prefer proportional representation over first past the post. Proportional representation seems to be what most people who want electoral reform over here want. The only problem though is that I don't see electoral reform happening any time soon due to the Conservative majority. With a Conservative majority, none of the other parties really have any power as the conservatives don't have to gain the support of other parties to pass or reject bills. This means electoral reform likely won't happen any time soon because both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have always supported the first past the post system due to the fact that those two parties have been the only two parties to form the government, and they want to keep it that way. FPTP allows those parties to gain a much larger percentage of the seats than they percentage of the popular vote they received, so I don't see electoral reform happening until the Conservatives are at least no longer a majority. However, I imagine it could be possible that the NDP, now much more prominent than ever before, could bring electoral reform to the attention of the public due to the support they've suddenly gained, and if the public becomes aware of how undemocratic our electoral system is, a larger amount of people could raise their voice about the subject. Thus, if the Conservatives didn't do as the public wanted by reforming the electoral system, they would lose support and the results wouldn't be in their favour by the next election.

I know what you mean. Last year in the UK we had a General Election where the Tories got 36% of the vote and were 20 seats short of a majority, whilst 5 years earlier Labour got 35% and a majority of 60! In the end the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed to form a coalition, so long as the Lib Dems got a referendum on AV. The sad thing is it looks like it will be defeated in a landslide.

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP and the Official Opposition, who I spoke of earlier in this thread, died this morning after battling cancer for a long time. I find this fairly upsetting, he seemed to be one of the most honest politicians I know of, and he really seemed like he actually cared about the people of this country and not about his own personal interest, something which can be very rare among politicians. I can only hope the NDP can find a leader that can do at least half as good as Jack Layton. I happen to be visiting Ottawa, the capital city of Canada, for a couple days right now, and when I was at the Parliament building today, there were countless bouquets of flowers at the front in memory of Jack Layton. I'm glad to have been visiting at this time, as I was able to stand among those paying their respects at the Parliament building.

[recovering_fan]

Wow, looks like he fought hard (poltically) right up until the end.

[Lewis]

Thatâ??s really sad, he seemed to be a good person. Who do you think is going to be the next NDP leader?

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Well, when Jack Layton stepped down to try to fight his illness, he recommended that Nycole Turmel, a Member of Parliament for the NDP, should lead the party until he returned (he only intended to step down temporarily). Since he passed away, she will have to lead the party until they have a leadership election. Jack Layton said in a letter that he wrote before he died that he would like an election to be held in early 2012.

His funeral is today, and tonight, the CN Tower and Niagara Falls will be lit up orange (the New Democratic Party's colour), so I may go to Toronto tonight to see the CN Tower when it is orange.