[RodeoRanch]

Here's a neat little tool that compares your political views to the stated platforms of the major parties.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...11/votecompass/


I was closest to the Liberals.

[Darkwatch]

Closest to Liberal as well, and I am. I just want to see the party cleaned up more from all the chaff.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

RodeoRanch, on 27 March 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

Here's a neat little tool that compares your political views to the stated platforms of the major parties.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...11/votecompass/


I was closest to the Liberals.

Awesome tool, actually. Before weighting (at the end), I'm closest to Greens and not far off from NDP. After weighting the issues, I end up squarely NDP. I suspect my pre-weighting divergence from the NDP stems largely from a wildly divergent stance on Afghanistan, militarization of the Arctic, and the potential inclusion of private health care (to a certain point). I did notice, however, that pre-weighting, most of my positions are perfectly aligned with the NDP's; by contrast, I was usually one or two off from the Green's. Which is why I suspect my few big outliers changed the tally in the Greens' favour, and that the weighting at the end brought me back to the NDP.

Anyhow, I'll be promoting that tool. It's pretty cool.

[D'rek]

That is a very neat little tool, thanks for the link. I'm just about exactly halfway between Liberal and Conservative, which is more or less what I expected.

Like a lot of these surveys I've done before, my top pick for PM is apparently Duceppe. See, they only ask in the leaders section whether you think the leaders are trustworthy or competent, but not whether you agree with them! I think Duceppe is very good and upfront about being head of the Bloc, but he's openly disinterested with anything outside of Quebec, so I hardly think he'd really be a good PM!

[Tapper]

D, on 28 March 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

That is a very neat little tool, thanks for the link. I'm just about exactly halfway between Liberal and Conservative, which is more or less what I expected.

Like a lot of these surveys I've done before, my top pick for PM is apparently Duceppe. See, they only ask in the leaders section whether you think the leaders are trustworthy or competent, but not whether you agree with them! I think Duceppe is very good and upfront about being head of the Bloc, but he's openly disinterested with anything outside of Quebec, so I hardly think he'd really be a good PM!

Unless it is of an independent Quebec.....

Interesting debate for me to read here - I guess it has both to do with the amount of Canadaland people we have here, and a political system that's closer to my own than the US and UK systems.

[Abyss]

Mezla PigDog, on 26 March 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

Abyss, on 26 March 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:

but he may be enough to reclaim what they lost by fronting Dion in the last election.

You guys let Celine Dion get involved with politics???

Darkwatch, on 26 March 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

If it had been her the Liberals would have won a landslide victory.
No, it was Stéphane Dion. A very smart man, just not leader material.

Yep.

I know far, far too many people who historically voted Liberal but could not, simply could NOT, vote Lib knowing that Dion would be PM.

In retrospect it's STILL hard to say if that was a mistake.

Quote

The problem is the liberals don't have a leader that the population actually likes. ... problematic is that the Liberals themselves aren't completely unified behind him, or even faking enthusiasm. ...you don't feel like the party is backing Ignatieff so why would you?.

And therein lies the rub which will probably result in a Liberal minority gov, or another Tory minority.

Anomander, on 27 March 2011 - 03:52 AM, said:

Abyss, on 26 March 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:

As for the Cons, another Harper Minority will be the end of Harper, and another three years of the current status quo.

With the contempt motion, broken election promises, and a number of powerful Tories retiring I would be surprised to see Harper get a majority this time around.

As for the NDP I think they will lose seats because of Layton's illness. ...

The best thing that coulld happen for the NDP, and probably the Libs, would be a coalition. The NDP have never had much credibility outside of a few specific and virtually extreme Left wing ridings and pockets in the Atlantic provinces. a coalition would give the Libs the bump they need ahead of the NDP and probably let the assimilate the few useful candidates that the NDP have available.

Goaswerfraiejen, on 27 March 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

Dion's problems stemmed from effective Conservative attack ads (and a strong helping of anti-Francophonism on the part of most Canadians) and, even more importantly, absolutely no party unity. Dion could easily have succeeded/done MUCH better if his caucus hadn't been so busy trying to steal power away from him. Remember that he'd just won the leadership not long before as a compromise candidate; Bob Rae, Ignatieff, and the others were more interested in trying to re-fight the leadership race they lost than presenting a united front and winning an election campaign. ...

Yes and no. Dion's overt francophonie was only part of his problem. His lack of polish, his overly academic image, his lack of profile and the fact that he became leader BECAUSE of the party split, not in spite of it, all whittled him down. And then a series of gafs, weak public appearances (the fuzzy video is a notable one - how the hell did they let that out the door?) and a generally wishy washy presentation effectively cost the Libs the election. But his francophone background in an of itself wasn't his problem... Trudeau proved again and again that to lead Canada, you need to be a leader, nevermind how you good to speak the english, eh? Sure, Harper sort of looks like the guy who plays the evil vice-president on a season of 24 or maybe STARGATE, but he comes across as leader-material and as posted upthread, he controls his party. Evil leader material maybe, but even so.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Abyss, on 28 March 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

Quote

The problem is the liberals don't have a leader that the population actually likes. ... problematic is that the Liberals themselves aren't completely unified behind him, or even faking enthusiasm. ...you don't feel like the party is backing Ignatieff so why would you?.

And therein lies the rub which will probably result in a Liberal minority gov, or another Tory minority.

Realistically, I think the Bloc has as much to do with the Liberals not being able to gain a majority as having a leader with poor charisma does. Winning a large number of seats in Quebec has always been key to a Liberal majority, and that seems less likely now.

As far as the voting tool goes, I came up Liberal, which is what I expected and what I will be voting. I am not sure how much difference that will make, as a long run of provincial Liberal governments in BC may make people vote for other parties due to the "tired of the same party" aspect (even though they are not affiliated).

I do find it amusing that the overwhelming majority here is opposed to Harper, while the other forum I pay attention to is definately pro Harper and most of those I know would normally split between Liberals and Conservatives but have a genuine hate for Harper due to his reversal on income trusts (costing someone large amounts of money is a good way to piss them off). It would be interesting to see some demographic information on the two competing forums.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Okay, maybe I'm more than amused at the difference. I am really curious, as in I want to know, and want to know yesterday.

So I posted in the other forum, asking for those who participated to give a bit of info about themselves and who they would be most likely to vote for. May as well do the same here.

For myself, I went to Uni, make 70k-80k per year now and have no dependents. I will vote Liberal.

[Mentalist]

I'm a student, living with family whne not in school.
I will vote NDP or Green. but I may be on vacation that week, and thus out of the country.

[Darkwatch]

There are ways to vote before hand when you know you'll be gone.

Me, student. No dependents, have my own place and shitty income. I will be voting Liberal.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Gwynn ap Nudd, on 29 March 2011 - 02:53 AM, said:

Realistically, I think the Bloc has as much to do with the Liberals not being able to gain a majority as having a leader with poor charisma does. Winning a large number of seats in Quebec has always been key to a Liberal majority, and that seems less likely now.

I disagree. In 1993, the first federal election with the Bloc, the Bloc won 54 seats and Chrétien won a majority. The reason Chrétien won had more to do with the fact that the rest of the vote was split between the Reform, ProgCon, and NDP votes. It still had 44 seats in 1997, dropped to 38 in 2000 (the Liberals picked up the slack that time). In 2004, it took 54 seats again. 51 in 2006, and 49 in 2006. So they've been quite consistent throughout their history. What's changed in the political landscape, however, is the creation of the Conservative Party of Canada out of the Prog and Reform Parties. That merger makes it much harder for the Liberals to dent the political landscape, especially when Ontario started voting Tory more often than not. The sponsorship scandal is largely to blame for the Liberals' current fortunes; it decimated them, and the subsequent leadership contests have been pretty vicious, and have put individuals before the country.

No doubt the Bloc's stranglehold on Québec doesn't help the Liberals at all; on the other hand, it's instrumental to denying a Tory majority. And I suspect it harms the NDP just as much as/more than the Liberals.

[Illuyankas]

Yo people from Canadia, how accurate is this as a description of what's going on?

[cerveza_fiesta]

It's funny. The CBC news is borderline satirizing the whole thing.

"and today, Stephen Harper was in burnaby, still telling everyone about the dreaded Liberal-led coalition, even though the liberals have said that they are not forming a coalition. Maybe tomorrow we'll have some actual platform issues to report on."

Which is good, because Harper's biggest lines so far have been complete baloney.

• Evil opposition coalition - Opposition stated they aren't making one, and the allegation that it would be bad for Canada is baseless even if it was a possibility, plus harper didn't think it was so bad for him to form one in 2004
• Canadian Labour Congress Supported our Budget - Complete BS, which has now been stated by the prez of the CLC and the conservatives so far haven't retracted their statements.
• The Budget was fair and the Liberals refused to play ball - when the election has nothing to do with whether the budget was fair or not. They got voted down on non-confidence for contempt of parliament, originally for refusing to divulge cost figures for their fighter jet program if I'm not mistaken. The fighter jet program wasn't even in the budget, which means that they have no plans to ever tell anybody how much it's going to cost and they're going to be spending outside the budget on it.
• Canadians want this, Canadians don't want that, blah blah - Fuck off dude...I know what I want. Tell me what you're going to do and I'll say if I want you in office or not.
• Canada emerged from the global economic recession in better shape than most other countries in the developed world. Ok this is true...but the implication that it's 100% because of the tory gov't godlike management abilities is stretching the truth. A lot.

There's a few more but I can't think of them off the top of my head. To be honest, harper in my eyes is coming off like a viscious, lying fucker. IMO he's doing himself way more harm than good with the levels of negativity and truth-twisting that he's whipping out this time. He's a shrewd manager and a strong leader, but the way he goes about it is just altogether disturbing to me.

That vote alignment thing is pretty neat to. Cast me perfectly. Centreist with a liberal slant. I plan to vote liberal anyway. In the end, running the country requires a certain status quo no matter who's in charge. You still gotta tax the hell out of everybody and you still gotta run the same social programs - so the vote for me comes down to party values and history on issues that hold meaning for me. Liberals actually have a chance of winning some degree of power and are very closely aligned with my views on most issues, so they get my vote every time.

[rhulad]

RodeoRanch, on 27 March 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

Here's a neat little tool that compares your political views to the stated platforms of the major parties.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...11/votecompass/


I was closest to the Liberals.

According to this I'm a Social conservative on the left of the spectrum. I will once again be voting independent assuming since there are usually 1 or 2 in my riding.

[Abyss]

Mentalist, on 29 March 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

... I may be on vacation that week, and thus out of the country.

Darkwatch, on 29 March 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

There are ways to vote before hand when you know you'll be gone....

AND you dodge the lineups.
No excuses.

I know this is an unpopular position with some, but i'll go there for the sake of discussion: how does voting Indy, Green or NDP make any sense?
It seems to moi that all it does is filter votes away from a party that actually has a chance at being in power. Indy's have no voice. The Greens are a joke especially since they absorbed the Marijuana Party, and the NDP are barely hanging in there.

[rhulad]

Last time I voted independent the guy only lost by 200 votes. 

[Abyss]

rhulad, on 29 March 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Last time I voted independent the guy only lost by 200 votes.

Sure, but if he wins, what use is he?

I think historically there have been all of one, perhaps two instances where Indies swung votes in a minority parliament situation. Otherwise, absent such a rare national level event, the riding in question has no voice of any influence.

[rhulad]

Abyss, on 29 March 2011 - 08:22 PM, said:

rhulad, on 29 March 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Last time I voted independent the guy only lost by 200 votes.

Sure, but if he wins, what use is he?

I think historically there have been all of one, perhaps two instances where Indies swung votes in a minority parliament situation. Otherwise, absent such a rare national level event, the riding in question has no voice of any influence.

True, but considering where I live is probably always going to be Conservative, voting for a Liberal or NDP candidate is pointless since they have next to no chance of winning. It was however a wakeup call for the Conservative that got in. 

[Mentalist]

meh, that's the fault with the First Past the Post system. I'm fully with NDP in that we should go to proportional representation.

otherwise, we are essentially condemned to voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Anomander]

Illuyankas, on 29 March 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yo people from Canadia, how accurate is this as a description of what's going on?

Fairly accurate with the appropriate level of resignation for the outcome. The snide marks about Iggy are spot on too.

"It is worth explaining that Jean Chretien embodied one of the central principles of Canadian politics, which is that for all that the world thinks of us as nice and polite, we inevitably vote for whichever political leader seems like the most capable bastard. Chretien was a ridiculously capable bastard."

This quote about Chretien is pretty awesome as well.

cerveza_fiesta, on 29 March 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

• The Budget was fair and the Liberals refused to play ball - when the election has nothing to do with whether the budget was fair or not. They got voted down on non-confidence for contempt of parliament, originally for refusing to divulge cost figures for their fighter jet program if I'm not mistaken. The fighter jet program wasn't even in the budget, which means that they have no plans to ever tell anybody how much it's going to cost and they're going to be spending outside the budget on it.

To be honest, harper in my eyes is coming off like a viscious, lying fucker. IMO he's doing himself way more harm than good with the levels of negativity and truth-twisting that he's whipping out this time. He's a shrewd manager and a strong leader, but the way he goes about it is just altogether disturbing to me.

^This. The ongoing refusal to discuss the jet fighter program and to hide said secrecy behind false accusations is endlessly irritating. What's worse is that Iggy could have bitched slapped Harper over these issues during any of his most recent press conferences and yet he's so far floundered while Giles Duceppe has stepped up to confront the coalition issue.

Abyss, on 29 March 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

I know this is an unpopular position with some, but i'll go there for the sake of discussion: how does voting Indy, Green or NDP make any sense?

One could argue that you're providing said party (in the case of NDP & Green) with more funding. The increased funding to the Green party in the last election could very well mean they finally win a seat.