[Mentalist]

Bloc resurgence appears to have tossed a spanner for both of the front-runners.

Welp, I guess we'll be back here in a few years.

[Abyss]

Mentalist, on 22 October 2019 - 12:56 PM, said:

Bloc resurgence appears to have tossed a spanner for both of the front-runners.

Welp, I guess we'll be back here in a few years.

I give it two. Three if Justin walks/gets turfed and Catherine McKenna takes over.

[QuickTidal]

I mean, I can live with a Liberal Minority...but it likely means nada will get done. And it's certainly better than a Con win.

That said, WTF is up with Quebec AGAIN?

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2019 - 02:10 PM, said:

I mean, I can live with a Liberal Minority...but it likely means nada will get done. And it's certainly better than a Con win.

That said, WTF is up with Quebec AGAIN?

I'll take it over a con win / minority.

Quebec.... the Orange Tide post-Layton NDP didn't impress anyone, the Bill 21 issue polarized the rural and urban voters, Libs lost credibility, Cons didn't gain any, and a 'New Bloc' positioning themselves as 'representing Quebec's interests' as opposed to 'separatist!!!!' swept up the debris.

That said, they're still mostly separatists and tho a resurgence, is still less seats than the Bloc held historically. Mostly the NDP lost ground, Cons didn't gain any, Libs lost a bit and held Montreal as usual.

Jody Wilson-Reybauld won as an indy, which is interesting because six months ago i would have expected a lawn gnome to beat her. Impressive that she held onto enough local credibility to pull that off. I expect the NDP to press hard to recruit her and if Justin walks, the Libs to try to bring her back.

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

It's an interesting / unsurprising color spread...

 election2019.png (70.4K)
Number of downloads: 0


...the Libs holding the Eastern big cities and the Atlantic and Territories which no one seems to really care about, Cons solidly holding the middle as usual, NDP solid in BC but mostly rural elsewhere, and a very very Bloc'd Quebec.

[QuickTidal]

What that map tells me is that without coal/oil in the Prairies being held onto/supported by the Conservatives (VS everyone else who wants climate change in check, and a slow foot to better options for economic growth in those provinces)...the conservatives would be toast EVERYWHERE. The blue concentration there smacks of the fossil fuel industry DEATH grip on those economies...and the cons feed into that to maintain a power hold....once that goes...it's going to be UGLY.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

What that map tells me is that without coal/oil in the Prairies being held onto/supported by the Conservatives (VS everyone else who wants climate change in check, and a slow foot to better options for economic growth in those provinces)...the conservatives would be toast EVERYWHERE. The blue concentration there smacks of the fossil fuel industry DEATH grip on those economies...and the cons feed into that to maintain a power hold....once that goes...it's going to be UGLY.

Yah, but when everyone else is telling several hundred thousand people that the only way to save the world is to make them and their friends n neighbors unemployed/unemployable, ruin their communities, force them to move their families elsewhere or risk poverty and homelessness, they cling to the party that says the opposite.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2019 - 03:37 PM, said:

What that map tells me is that without coal/oil in the Prairies being held onto/supported by the Conservatives (VS everyone else who wants climate change in check, and a slow foot to better options for economic growth in those provinces)...the conservatives would be toast EVERYWHERE. The blue concentration there smacks of the fossil fuel industry DEATH grip on those economies...and the cons feed into that to maintain a power hold....once that goes...it's going to be UGLY.

Also, most of rural Southern Ontario. If you look at the numbers, the Cons got 250k more votes than the Libs (though NDP and Greens also amount to about 4.5 million votes, and they get less seats together - 27) than the Block (32) which has less than 1.5 million voters, but that's FPTP for you). But what I'm trying to say is, there are a lot of people (every 3rd voter out there) that believe in what the Blues are selling.

I'm a bit surprised the 905 stayed red, tbh. Better than the alternative, but surprising nonetheless.

[D'rek]

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

They did also increase their share of the popular vote by quite a bit (over double the last election??) even if it didn't lead to a big difference in number of actual MPs.

[QuickTidal]

We need MMP instead of FPTP...I want that electoral reform so badly I can taste it!

[Abyss]

D, on 22 October 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

They did also increase their share of the popular vote by quite a bit (over double the last election??) even if it didn't lead to a big difference in number of actual MPs.

True. A lot of the post election commentary raises how this election was about the environment but the issue kept being lost. The Greens took in a portion of voters who kept that in mind but even so not enough to shift them to more seats.

[D'rek]

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

D, on 22 October 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

They did also increase their share of the popular vote by quite a bit (over double the last election??) even if it didn't lead to a big difference in number of actual MPs.

True. A lot of the post election commentary raises how this election was about the environment but the issue kept being lost. The Greens took in a portion of voters who kept that in mind but even so not enough to shift them to more seats.

At the very least, it almost certainly means May isn't going anywhere and the way the Greens operate will remain largely the same. They'll try to stay the course and keep this momentum going: 1 seat last election, 3 seats this election, 7 seats next election...

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

We need MMP instead of FPTP...I want that electoral reform so badly I can taste it!

Is it time to dust off ye olde MMP vs STV debate?

Honestly I'm torn between the two. MMP is obviously simpler and seems to have a more proven track record (most famously New Zealand). But I don't know if I'm ready to give up the importance of local representatives in lieu of enshrining political parties. Charlie Angus didn't get reelected because he is NDP, he got reelected because he's Charlie Angus - there's a big fear that a decrease in the link of MPs to ridings will mean the evaporation of what little sway/exposure rural communities currently have.

[LinearPhilosopher]

D, on 22 October 2019 - 07:44 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

D, on 22 October 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

They did also increase their share of the popular vote by quite a bit (over double the last election??) even if it didn't lead to a big difference in number of actual MPs.

True. A lot of the post election commentary raises how this election was about the environment but the issue kept being lost. The Greens took in a portion of voters who kept that in mind but even so not enough to shift them to more seats.

At the very least, it almost certainly means May isn't going anywhere and the way the Greens operate will remain largely the same. They'll try to stay the course and keep this momentum going: 1 seat last election, 3 seats this election, 7 seats next election...

QuickTidal, on 22 October 2019 - 07:18 PM, said:

We need MMP instead of FPTP...I want that electoral reform so badly I can taste it!

Is it time to dust off ye olde MMP vs STV debate?

Honestly I'm torn between the two. MMP is obviously simpler and seems to have a more proven track record (most famously New Zealand). But I don't know if I'm ready to give up the importance of local representatives in lieu of enshrining political parties. Charlie Angus didn't get reelected because he is NDP, he got reelected because he's Charlie Angus - there's a big fear that a decrease in the link of MPs to ridings will mean the evaporation of what little sway/exposure rural communities currently have.

Im the hipster who will preach for days about the virtues of MMR over MMP or STV any day.

[worry]

Please do, I'd like to hear the arguments for these various processes.

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 23 October 2019 - 12:08 AM, said:

Please do, I'd like to hear the arguments for these various processes.

Ok so MMR is a hybrid of a bunch of systems and in my opinion brings out the best elements in each.

So the way MMR works is you still have a riding system where you have local MPs you vote for. What is different is:
a) More then one MP per riding.
b') Ranked ballot.

A: The logic behind this is that by having multiple candidates per riding you avoid the main pitfall of FPTP in that it becomes either First and Second past the post, or first second and third past the vote. Rather than having a scenario where a party with 30% or less of the popular vote getting 100% of the representation, you could end up with two candidate who each have over 50% of the representation (in 2 MP ridings), or if you're running 3 MPs you'd likely get closer to 70% effective representation. Party popularity also becomes more important as you could potentially run two liberal candidates, or two tory candidate in a riding if a riding really does lean that way and have that much impact. A more split riding will be forced to have a more split representation.

B: So the way the ranked ballot works step 1: is all votes are tallied for everyone's first vote. Once the first round is in, we see if there are clear winners (candidates with 50% of the vote in a 2MP riding, 33% in a 3MP riding).

If there is a clear winner, all votes that exceed the threshold are then allocated to the 2nd choice candidates. (You'd likely use a form of pro rating to distribute the excess equally).

If there are no clear winners, you eliminate the candidate with the lowest amount of votes and then allocate out the 2nd votes for that candidate. You then go back to the step above, if that condition is not met you then eliminate the next biggest looser and you continue this process until you get to a point where if you're in a 2mp riding, you have 2 candidates left, if you're in a 3MP riding you have 3 candidates etc...

The fact you vote can be transferred as many times as you want effectively eliminates the need for strategic voting. Strategic voting becomes the last resort when your chosen candidate simply isn't popular. You have not been penalized for voting for your preffered candidate.

If you only like 2 candidates and thats it, both are out of the running, your vote effectveily goes blank and doesn't get allocated back.

If you're next vote on the ballot box isn't the conversation, it goes to the next etc.

So as far a I'm aware this is the best system that maximises the pluses of local representation and having a diversity of views which will prevent a 2 party system, while minimising the negatives in current systems like strategic voting.

One question that was asked is "doesn't this mean you are hiring more politicians?" the answer is no. You simply redraw the riding map to have fewer ridings but the same amount of MPs.My own riding has been redrawn twice in the last 2 decades so it isn't as if we don't have the tools to adequately redraw ridings based upon population.

Another question im asked is "this is too complicated". The entire process above can be put into a 3 step flow chart. Make a chart, slap some colors on it, and bam you're done.

Another question: won't this make counting ballots harder? To a degree yes but it's not as if once all the ballots are turned electronic we can't write an algorithm that can do all the math and get us a result. I recall my local election used scantron sheets so thats not a problem.

I'd also argue this would make elections cheaper for candidates as candidates who are part of the same party can effectively pool certain costs.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 23 October 2019 - 12:43 AM

[D'rek]

Excellent explanation. But that sounds exactly like what I thought STV was...

[LinearPhilosopher]

D, on 23 October 2019 - 12:54 AM, said:

Excellent explanation. But that sounds exactly like what I thought STV was...

STV= Single Transferable Vote, You still have FPTP but you get a first and second choice.

[worry]

So... if you have a slate of 6 candidates and a voter ranks their top 3 and leaves the other 3 unmarked (as opposed to providing a full top to bottom ranking), those latter 3 receive no benefit from that ballot in any of the rounds, correct?

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 23 October 2019 - 01:03 AM, said:

So... if you have a slate of 6 candidates and a voter ranks their top 3 and leaves the other 3 unmarked (as opposed to providing a full top to bottom ranking), those latter 3 receive no benefit from that ballot in any of the rounds, correct?

Correct indeed. The voter is under no compulsion to give a vote to every party.

[D'rek]

LinearPhilosopher, on 23 October 2019 - 01:00 AM, said:

D, on 23 October 2019 - 12:54 AM, said:

Excellent explanation. But that sounds exactly like what I thought STV was...

STV= Single Transferable Vote, You still have FPTP but you get a first and second choice.

Looking at a few websites and wikipedia, and they all seem to describe STV the way you did MMR. And I don't find any results about "MMR" ?

But I guess maybe STV *could* be implemented with single-representative ridings, so it's just the vote transfering around to elect one representative. Every time I see STV described, though, it is for multi-representative ridings, like you described.

[QuickTidal]

Nah, I like MMP. Sorry bro.