2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Because ignoring the voice of 60% of Canadian voters is fine just so you can have a safe space. Everyone's vote should count, no matter for whom it's cast and if the far-right even had a shot at taking any sort of considerable power, it would've happened by now.

I'll say it again: IRV. There are electoral systems we can use that make everyone's vote count without also giving a voice to people whose ideology promotes autocracy, fascism, and genocide.

And don't think about the far-right like that. The US is an uncomfortably close example of what happens when you do.

Except IRV just furthers the problem of marginalizing smaller parties, with the 2015 election data, IRV would give the Liberals 224 seats compared to the 184 they won with FPTP, even though they won less than 40% of the vote. Should 67% of the seats and 100% of the power be held with less than 40% of the vote, of course not. The Liberals only favour IRV since it would just shift the system in their favour and further the same cycle of campaign on the left and govern on the right with broken promises that they've always done.


And the far-right isn't even as much of a problem as you're making it out to be here. In the one riding where a party resembling the far-right even ran (L'Alliance du Nord in Lévis-Lotbinière), they only won 0.2% of the vote, aka last place in the riding. So saying that they're going to take power under a PR or MMP system is like saying the Christian Heritage Party (who often captures five times that number in ridings they run in) is going to make Canada into a fundamentalist Christian state the moment we have MMP in place.

[Camicon]

I never said IRV was proportional, but implementing it would cease majority governments being formed by a plurality of the vote - something which regularly occurs under FPTP - which absolutely is a step in the right direction.

And while PR does encourage cooperation is also encourages regionalism, which is something that - in my opinion - would harm Canada. The western provinces already feel alienated from the rest of the country, as does Quebec, as do the territories. Maybe the maritimes as well, I'm not familiar enough with the political climate there to say either way. Regardless, a PR system would encourage parties to play to specific regions of the country, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

This reasoning is completely counterintuitive and I have no idea why its a talking point. Under PR, you need broad appeal. You cant win seats by just focusing on a few districts like you cant under the current system. Regionalism won't work very well under PR because you're drawing from a smaller base of people. I can't think of any countries that use PR that have significant regionalist parties anyway. In Canada we might still have BQ, sure, but it's not like anything else is gonna suddenly become a power.

Under a PR system you almost never end up with one party forming a majority government. It's minorities coming together to form coalitions. Canada, politically, cuts along regional lines. Under a PR system you would see federal parties representing particular regions of the country; like the Bloc in Quebec, there would be one that dominates the maritimes, one that dominates the prairies, etc. Our federal politics would be dominated by parties whose platforms are focused on one particular region of the country.

A party does not need broad appeal in order to gain and keep seats in a PR system. A PR system in Canada would only encourage more political parties like the Bloc.

I'll say it again: IRV. There are electoral systems we can use that make everyone's vote count without also giving a voice to people whose ideology promotes autocracy, fascism, and genocide.

And don't think about the far-right like that. The US is an uncomfortably close example of what happens when you do.

Except IRV just furthers the problem of marginalizing smaller parties, with the 2015 election data, IRV would give the Liberals 224 seats compared to the 184 they won with FPTP, even though they won less than 40% of the vote. Should 67% of the seats and 100% of the power be held with less than 40% of the vote, of course not. The Liberals only favour IRV since it would just shift the system in their favour and further the same cycle of campaign on the left and govern on the right with broken promises that they've always done.

You get how IRV works, right? If an MP needs more than 50% of the vote to win their riding then any majority government that is formed would necessarily have more than 50% of the popular vote (provided that ridings are all the same population).

The Liberals don't favour IRV, in point of fact. They favour the status quo, FPTP, evidenced by their doing nothing about electoral reform.

And the far-right isn't even as much of a problem as you're making it out to be here. In the one riding where a party resembling the far-right even ran (L'Alliance du Nord in Lévis-Lotbinière), they only won 0.2% of the vote, aka last place in the riding. So saying that they're going to take power under a PR or MMP system is like saying the Christian Heritage Party (who often captures five times that number in ridings they run in) is going to make Canada into a fundamentalist Christian state the moment we have MMP in place.

Trump didn't ride into the White House on the back of a third party, he couped the GOP. I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss the far-right because the tertiary parties that cater to them aren't powerful.

[Union of Despotistan]

As a strong supporter of the now dead voting reform, I strongly reject IRV as it is tedious and complicated for little positive results. Ireland have this and I'm fairly not convinced by it.

I'm a way bigger fan of the German electoral system in which the majority of the seats are by ridings like here, but with a part, I think its 20%, of the seats that are divided using the proportional system.

[Camicon]

As a strong supporter of the now dead voting reform, I strongly reject IRV as it is tedious and complicated for little positive results. Ireland have this and I'm fairly not convinced by it.

I'm a way bigger fan of the German electoral system in which the majority of the seats are by ridings like here, but with a part, I think its 20%, of the seats that are divided using the proportional system.

What is complicated about Instant Runoff Voting? Tedious, I mean, maybe for the people who count the ballots, but complicated?

[Saint Fedski]

I'll say it again: IRV. There are electoral systems we can use that make everyone's vote count without also giving a voice to people whose ideology promotes autocracy, fascism, and genocide.

And don't think about the far-right like that. The US is an uncomfortably close example of what happens when you do.

So people who have different opinions than you are promoting racism, fascism and genocide? And people who have different opinions than you shouldn't have a voice?
You're suggesting that 46% of the electorate should not have a voice because they disagree with you? But yet you want a greater democracy where EVERYONE has stronger voice?

[Camicon]

I'll say it again: IRV. There are electoral systems we can use that make everyone's vote count without also giving a voice to people whose ideology promotes autocracy, fascism, and genocide.

And don't think about the far-right like that. The US is an uncomfortably close example of what happens when you do.

So people who have different opinions than you are promoting racism, fascism and genocide? And people who have different opinions than you shouldn't have a voice?
You're suggesting that 46% of the electorate should not have a voice because they disagree with you? But yet you want a greater democracy where EVERYONE has stronger voice?

No, people who are promoting autocracy, fascism, and genocide are promoting autocracy, fascism, and genocide. And I don't want a political party devoted to those things in my government. I want a democracy that won't fall prey to that kind of shit.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

This reasoning is completely counterintuitive and I have no idea why its a talking point. Under PR, you need broad appeal. You cant win seats by just focusing on a few districts like you cant under the current system. Regionalism won't work very well under PR because you're drawing from a smaller base of people. I can't think of any countries that use PR that have significant regionalist parties anyway. In Canada we might still have BQ, sure, but it's not like anything else is gonna suddenly become a power.

Under a PR system you almost never end up with one party forming a majority government. It's minorities coming together to form coalitions. Canada, politically, cuts along regional lines. Under a PR system you would see federal parties representing particular regions of the country; like the Bloc in Quebec, there would be one that dominates the maritimes, one that dominates the prairies, etc. Our federal politics would be dominated by parties whose platforms are focused on one particular region of the country.

A party does not need broad appeal in order to gain and keep seats in a PR system. A PR system in Canada would only encourage more political parties like the Bloc.

Except IRV just furthers the problem of marginalizing smaller parties, with the 2015 election data, IRV would give the Liberals 224 seats compared to the 184 they won with FPTP, even though they won less than 40% of the vote. Should 67% of the seats and 100% of the power be held with less than 40% of the vote, of course not. The Liberals only favour IRV since it would just shift the system in their favour and further the same cycle of campaign on the left and govern on the right with broken promises that they've always done.

You get how IRV works, right? If an MP needs more than 50% of the vote to win their riding then any majority government that is formed would necessarily have more than 50% of the popular vote (provided that ridings are all the same population).

The Liberals don't favour IRV, in point of fact. They favour the status quo, FPTP, evidenced by their doing nothing about electoral reform.

And the far-right isn't even as much of a problem as you're making it out to be here. In the one riding where a party resembling the far-right even ran (L'Alliance du Nord in Lévis-Lotbinière), they only won 0.2% of the vote, aka last place in the riding. So saying that they're going to take power under a PR or MMP system is like saying the Christian Heritage Party (who often captures five times that number in ridings they run in) is going to make Canada into a fundamentalist Christian state the moment we have MMP in place.

Trump didn't ride into the White House on the back of a third party, he couped the GOP. I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss the far-right because the tertiary parties that cater to them aren't powerful.

So by living in a riding that is held by the current interim leader of the Tories, my vote shouldn't ever count since she consistently wins >70% of the vote and it shows no sign of letting up?? And if the far-right are so powerful here, how haven't they couped the Conservative party? And the Liberals did favour IRV when they were pushing for electoral reform, but FPTP also favours them anyways too (albeit not as much).

[Camicon]

You get how IRV works, right? If an MP needs more than 50% of the vote to win their riding then any majority government that is formed would necessarily have more than 50% of the popular vote (provided that ridings are all the same population).

The Liberals don't favour IRV, in point of fact. They favour the status quo, FPTP, evidenced by their doing nothing about electoral reform.

So by living in a riding that is held by the current interim leader of the Tories, my vote shouldn't ever count since she consistently wins >70% of the vote and it shows no sign of letting up??

That's how majority rule works. PR systems allow for majority rule, same as IRV does.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

So by living in a riding that is held by the current interim leader of the Tories, my vote shouldn't ever count since she consistently wins >70% of the vote and it shows no sign of letting up??

That's how majority rule works. PR systems allow for majority rule, same as IRV does.

But in PR, the majority of the votes allows for majority rule, the vote is proportional to the amount of power, IRV is just tyranny by minority.

[Camicon]

That's how majority rule works. PR systems allow for majority rule, same as IRV does.

But in PR, the majority of the votes allows for majority rule, the vote is proportional to the amount of power, IRV is just tyranny by minority.

IRV is a system wherein a riding is only won once a candidate has achieved more than 50% of the votes in their riding.

Provided that ridings are drawn to have the same number of people in each one, it is mathematically impossible for an IRV electoral system to produce a majority government that received a minority of the vote.

[Anarcho Somethingism]

It's a real shame what the Trudeau government has done. Canada needs reform. The current voting system almost couldn't get any worse. Seriously.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

But in PR, the majority of the votes allows for majority rule, the vote is proportional to the amount of power, IRV is just tyranny by minority.

IRV is a system wherein a riding is only won once a candidate has achieved more than 50% of the votes in their riding.

Provided that ridings are drawn to have the same number of people in each one, it is mathematically impossible for an IRV electoral system to produce a majority government that received a minority of the vote.

It'd still be receiving the minority of first-choice votes. Why should I have to settle and put my vote towards a candidate who'll just break promises when numerous other systems allow for my first choice to be represented.

[Camicon]

IRV is a system wherein a riding is only won once a candidate has achieved more than 50% of the votes in their riding.

Provided that ridings are drawn to have the same number of people in each one, it is mathematically impossible for an IRV electoral system to produce a majority government that received a minority of the vote.

It'd still be receiving the minority of first-choice votes. Why should I have to settle and put my vote towards a candidate who'll just break promises when numerous other systems allow for my first choice to be represented.

The difference between PR and IRV is where the compromise is made.

With IRV, compromise is made by the electorate. They collectively choose the least objectionable candidate. This may or may not create a majority or minority government.

With PR, compromise is made by elected officials. They jocky for position - trading favours and promises - until a bloc of parties, representing a plurality or majority of the electorate, is formed. PR doesn't magically make politicians less likely to break campaign promises.

The compromise has to be made somewhere, and I'd rather it be made by me than by an MP.

[Socialist Nordia]

It's a real shame what the Trudeau government has done. Canada needs reform. The current voting system almost couldn't get any worse. Seriously.

The current voting system almost couldn't get any worse.

couldn't get any worse.

...wat?

Perspective, please. It's honestly kind of painful watching this play out from down here in the US. I get it, your system could be better, but don't pretend it's the worst thing possible. It gets so much worse.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

It'd still be receiving the minority of first-choice votes. Why should I have to settle and put my vote towards a candidate who'll just break promises when numerous other systems allow for my first choice to be represented.

The difference between PR and IRV is where the compromise is made.

With IRV, compromise is made by the electorate. They collectively choose the least objectionable candidate. This may or may not create a majority or minority government.

With PR, compromise is made by elected officials. They jocky for position - trading favours and promises - until a bloc of parties, representing a plurality or majority of the electorate, is formed. PR doesn't magically make politicians less likely to break campaign promises.

The compromise has to be made somewhere, and I'd rather it be made by me than by an MP.

Fair, but the argument can also be made for electoral blocs allowing more than one ideology to influence government policy instead of just the old boys club of one party. One advantage to PR though would be smaller parties can run in rural areas, allowing for more choice instead of just the four main parties, if a Francosaskois wants to vote BQ, why shouldn't they be able to?

[Camicon]

It's a real shame what the Trudeau government has done. Canada needs reform. The current voting system almost couldn't get any worse. Seriously.

The current voting system almost couldn't get any worse.

couldn't get any worse.

...wat?

Perspective, please. It's honestly kind of painful watching this play out from down here in the US. I get it, your system could be better, but don't pretend it's the worst thing possible. It gets so much worse.

We have a majority government that was formed by... 39.5% of the popular vote. That happens quite regularly here. That our political parties are less objectionable than Trump doesn't mean our system is any better.

[Camicon]

The difference between PR and IRV is where the compromise is made.

With IRV, compromise is made by the electorate. They collectively choose the least objectionable candidate. This may or may not create a majority or minority government.

With PR, compromise is made by elected officials. They jocky for position - trading favours and promises - until a bloc of parties, representing a plurality or majority of the electorate, is formed. PR doesn't magically make politicians less likely to break campaign promises.

The compromise has to be made somewhere, and I'd rather it be made by me than by an MP.

Fair, but the argument can also be made for electoral blocs allowing more than one ideology to influence government policy instead of just the old boys club of one party. One advantage to PR though would be smaller parties can run in rural areas, allowing for more choice instead of just the four main parties, if a Francosaskois wants to vote BQ, why shouldn't they be able to?

Canada is already politically divided along regional lines. A PR system would exacerbate that, which isn't exactly good if you want to develop and strengthen a national Canadian identity. IRV would solve the problem of tyranny of the minority without what I consider to be an unfortunate side effect.

The electoral system, like our democracy, is a means to an end. I think that IRV gets us closer to that end than PR does.

And if a Francosaskois wants to vote for the Bloc then they need to move to Quebec, because the Bloc chooses to only run in Quebec.

[AsReil]

I guess I'll go tell the trans people who are denied being able to rent an apartment or who are turned away from jobs that it's not really discrimination then. It's obviously just impoliteness.

It's illegal to refuse service because of the customer's views, but the employer still holds the right to refuse if it infringes on their religious stance, or if they're just a dick.
"You have to serve me, even if i'm being disrespectful or it's against your religion, because i'm transgender and refusing service to me would be discrimination!"
I could do the same with any gender or sexuality, and it would still be nonsense. Straight cis men don't get extra rights saying people have to be nice to them because they're not trans.
There is no law that says servers have to serve people no matter what, but neither is there one that says they can refuse service because they're transgender- that's against the law yada yada you know. If they want rights, they can plead to the preexisting one; there's no reason to force another.

I believe that proves that this is unnecessary, forcing inclusiveness, and trying to make trans people relevant again. More relevant than others at least
These 'hate crimes' have nothing to do with them being transgender, it's just other people and how accepting they are!

I personally believe they feel entitled. They're people *mind explosion sound*. When that Jenner was on a magazine cover, they didn't need to say that he was trans; same way there's no reason to say the cover of so-and-so magazine is a girl! If they want to be treated equally, they need to act like it.

My apologies if that was a little rant-y

[MERIZoC]

This reasoning is completely counterintuitive and I have no idea why its a talking point. Under PR, you need broad appeal. You cant win seats by just focusing on a few districts like you cant under the current system. Regionalism won't work very well under PR because you're drawing from a smaller base of people. I can't think of any countries that use PR that have significant regionalist parties anyway. In Canada we might still have BQ, sure, but it's not like anything else is gonna suddenly become a power.

Under a PR system you almost never end up with one party forming a majority government. It's minorities coming together to form coalitions. Canada, politically, cuts along regional lines. Under a PR system you would see federal parties representing particular regions of the country; like the Bloc in Quebec, there would be one that dominates the maritimes, one that dominates the prairies, etc. Our federal politics would be dominated by parties whose platforms are focused on one particular region of the country.

A party does not need broad appeal in order to gain and keep seats in a PR system. A PR system in Canada would only encourage more political parties like the Bloc.

Multiple parties forming govt is good. It encourages cooperation and ensures all people's interests are recognized. Your idea that more regionalist parties would gain power is absurd. If I am the liberal party, and I get votes from all around the country, I will be stronger. If I am Bloc, and I can only get votes from one part of the country, I am weaker. Under PR, every vote counts, so parties will represent everywhere people vote for them, not just one specific area.

[Camicon]

Under a PR system you almost never end up with one party forming a majority government. It's minorities coming together to form coalitions. Canada, politically, cuts along regional lines. Under a PR system you would see federal parties representing particular regions of the country; like the Bloc in Quebec, there would be one that dominates the maritimes, one that dominates the prairies, etc. Our federal politics would be dominated by parties whose platforms are focused on one particular region of the country.

A party does not need broad appeal in order to gain and keep seats in a PR system. A PR system in Canada would only encourage more political parties like the Bloc.

Multiple parties forming govt is good. It encourages cooperation and ensures all people's interests are recognized. Your idea that more regionalist parties would gain power is absurd. If I am the liberal party, and I get votes from all around the country, I will be stronger. If I am Bloc, and I can only get votes from one part of the country, I am weaker. Under PR, every vote counts, so parties will represent everywhere people vote for them, not just one specific area.

Under our current electoral system, the only regional party that has any power is the Bloc. A PR system would give other regional parties the ability to elect MP's and form governments. Initially they might be small, but they would quickly gain strength at the expense of parties like the Liberals and Tories that, for all their bluster, are Ontario-centric. Big Tent parties fall apart under PR because they aren't necessary.

[Oneracon]

I guess I'll go tell the trans people who are denied being able to rent an apartment or who are turned away from jobs that it's not really discrimination then. It's obviously just impoliteness.

It's illegal to refuse service because of the customer's views, but the employer still holds the right to refuse if it infringes on their religious stance, or if they're just a dick.

Actually under the CHRA it is still illegal for a business owner to refuse service to someone on a proscribed prohibited ground of discrimination, there is no exception for religious stances or "just being a dick".

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

"You have to serve me, even if i'm being disrespectful or it's against your religion, because i'm transgender and refusing service to me would be discrimination!"
I could do the same with any gender or sexuality, and it would still be nonsense. Straight cis men don't get extra rights saying people have to be nice to them because they're not trans.

Nobody is asking for extra rights, or for people to "be nice" to them. Discrimination in provision of services, goods, and accommodations isn't a case of rudeness... it's discrimination.

There is no law that says servers have to serve people no matter what, but neither is there one that says they can refuse service because they're transgender- that's against the law yada yada you know. If they want rights, they can plead to the preexisting one; there's no reason to force another.

I believe that proves that this is unnecessary, forcing inclusiveness, and trying to make trans people relevant again. More relevant than others at least

This is updating a law to explicitly state a right that already exists, not "forcing a new one". It's a minor housekeeping bill to update the text to ensure that there is no room for misinterpretation.

These 'hate crimes' have nothing to do with them being transgender, it's just other people and how accepting they are!

Hate crimes against trans people are fundamentally rooted in their being trans.

I personally believe they feel entitled. They're people *mind explosion sound*. When that Jenner was on a magazine cover, they didn't need to say that he was trans; same way there's no reason to say the cover of so-and-so magazine is a girl! If they want to be treated equally, they need to act like it.

My apologies if that was a little rant-y

People should feel entitled to the rights guaranteed to them, that's sort of the cornerstone of liberal democracies, and that their rights will apply equally across federally regulated and provincially/territorially regulated sectors. Under section 15 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law".

[MERIZoC]

Multiple parties forming govt is good. It encourages cooperation and ensures all people's interests are recognized. Your idea that more regionalist parties would gain power is absurd. If I am the liberal party, and I get votes from all around the country, I will be stronger. If I am Bloc, and I can only get votes from one part of the country, I am weaker. Under PR, every vote counts, so parties will represent everywhere people vote for them, not just one specific area.

Under our current electoral system, the only regional party that has any power is the Bloc. A PR system would give other regional parties the ability to elect MP's and form governments. Initially they might be small, but they would quickly gain strength at the expense of parties like the Liberals and Tories that, for all their bluster, are Ontario-centric. Big Tent parties fall apart under PR because they aren't necessary.

Can you cite any examples of this in other countries? There are a lot to choose from.

Face it, this is baseless conjecture. I've provided evidence as well as a mathematically based hypothesis and you're provided nothing.

[Camicon]

Under our current electoral system, the only regional party that has any power is the Bloc. A PR system would give other regional parties the ability to elect MP's and form governments. Initially they might be small, but they would quickly gain strength at the expense of parties like the Liberals and Tories that, for all their bluster, are Ontario-centric. Big Tent parties fall apart under PR because they aren't necessary.

Can you cite any examples of this in other countries? There are a lot to choose from.

Face it, this is baseless conjecture. I've provided evidence as well as a mathematically based hypothesis and you're provided nothing.

You've provided evidence and mathematical hypotheses? Feel free to re-post it, because I've seen none of it in this thread. I'll have something for you later tonight.

[MERIZoC]

Can you cite any examples of this in other countries? There are a lot to choose from.

Face it, this is baseless conjecture. I've provided evidence as well as a mathematically based hypothesis and you're provided nothing.

You've provided evidence and mathematical hypotheses? Feel free to re-post it, because I've seen none of it in this thread. I'll have something for you later tonight.

Past evidence being that countries with PR have not developed excessive regionalism because of it.

Mathematical hypothesis being that regionalist parties do worse under PR because instead of being able to focus on a few districts, the whole nation is now the electorate.

[Camicon]

You've provided evidence and mathematical hypotheses? Feel free to re-post it, because I've seen none of it in this thread. I'll have something for you later tonight.

Past evidence being that countries with PR have not developed excessive regionalism because of it.

Mathematical hypothesis being that regionalist parties do worse under PR because instead of being able to focus on a few districts, the whole nation is now the electorate.

All you've done so far is provide your opinion. All I've done so far is provide mine. For everyone else, it's a question of who they feel makes the stronger argument, who has more legitimacy. I'm under no impression that I can convince you of anything.

But you said you have evidence. That means citations. Data. Peer review.

I can go find some, I'm more than willing to. This is my field, it's what I've studied for. No trouble whatsoever.

But you said you already have it. Said you already posted it. Either pony up or walk it back.