2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Camicon]

So it looks like Kellie Leitch has thrown her lot in with Trump in the wake of this week's results... sort of.

Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch is praising American voters for throwing out “the elites” to elect billionaire Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency and says that same message needs to come to Canada.

In a fundraising e-mail to supporters, the Ontario MP expands on her plan to screen immigrants and refugees for “Canadian values” to also include visitors – although how such a system would work remains unclear.

“Tonight, our American cousins threw out the elites and elected Donald Trump as their next president,” Ms. Leitch, a pediatric surgeon, said in the e-mail sent to supporters early Wednesday morning after Mr. Trump was declared the winner.

“It’s an exciting message and one that we need delivered in Canada, as well.”

In a followup interview, Ms. Leitch said that “message” means the growing gap between what so-called elites and the average Canadian thinks. When asked whether she qualifies as elite due to her professional background, Ms. Leitch said, “You may call me an elite but look, I dealt with the most challenging old boys’ club there is in the country. They’re called surgeons.” When asked about Mr. Trump, she said “I’m not going to comment on Mr. Trump, whether he’s an elite or not.”

Ms. Leitch said she never endorsed Mr. Trump’s candidacy nor what he’s said about “women or people with disabilities or others.”

The waffling is interesting. Follows her usual pattern of throwing out red meat to her constituency via email but then turning around and walking her rhetoric back while talking to the press. Not sure it really works though, since it makes her look two-faced. Especially considering she's apparently expanded her 'Canadian values' test to visitors (!!), but still hasn't given any specifics on what it actually is.

Fuck Kellie Leitch. You want to ride Trump's coattails? Move to the US and go into politics there. We don't need that shit up here.

[Geilinor]

Fuck Kellie Leitch. You want to ride Trump's coattails? Move to the US and go into politics there. We don't need that shit up here.

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Fuck Kellie Leitch. You want to ride Trump's coattails? Move to the US and go into politics there. We don't need that shit up here.

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

She doesn't strike me as being exceptionally popular, thankfully. She's polling at the top of the Tory leadership race at 19% but it's a pretty crowded field with 12 people running and at least 18% undecided. One would hope that as people drop out support will coalesce around someone more sane like Chong. Of course we said similar things about the GOP field a year ago, so maybe best not to count our eggs before they hatch.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Fuck Kellie Leitch. You want to ride Trump's coattails? Move to the US and go into politics there. We don't need that shit up here.

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

If she gets the party leadership, I'm not voting for her.

[Novorobo]

Fuck Kellie Leitch. You want to ride Trump's coattails? Move to the US and go into politics there. We don't need that shit up here.

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

You know, maybe if more of those anti-Trump Americans would actually follow through on their promise to move to Canada after a Trump victory, we actually would be "free of the populist shit."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

You know, maybe if more of those anti-Trump Americans would actually follow through on their promise to move to Canada after a Trump victory, we actually would be "free of the populist shit."

"a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Ordinary people voted for both Trudeau and Hillary and they both won the popular vote.

[Novorobo]

You know, maybe if more of those anti-Trump Americans would actually follow through on their promise to move to Canada after a Trump victory, we actually would be "free of the populist shit."

"a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Ordinary people voted for both Trudeau and Hillary and they both won the popular vote.

Nope. Trudeau won a majority of districts without a majority of votes.

Now, you could argue that what the Liberals and NDP have in common make it similar to a popular-vote victory, but that still doesn't make it the same thing.

[Geilinor]

"a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Ordinary people voted for both Trudeau and Hillary and they both won the popular vote.

Nope. Trudeau won a majority of districts without a majority of votes.

Now, you could argue that what the Liberals and NDP have in common make it similar to a popular-vote victory, but that still doesn't make it the same thing.

Winning the popular vote doesn't require a majority.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Ordinary people voted for both Trudeau and Hillary and they both won the popular vote.

Nope. Trudeau won a majority of districts without a majority of votes.

Now, you could argue that what the Liberals and NDP have in common make it similar to a popular-vote victory, but that still doesn't make it the same thing.

Any thing I could say would be a just a repeat of what Geilinor said.

[Sanctissima]

"a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

Ordinary people voted for both Trudeau and Hillary and they both won the popular vote.

Nope. Trudeau won a majority of districts without a majority of votes.

Now, you could argue that what the Liberals and NDP have in common make it similar to a popular-vote victory, but that still doesn't make it the same thing.

He won by both. Keep in mind our politics aren't bipartisan, there are 5 major federal parties (well, really only 3 that have any actual power, but that's beside the point) which divy the votes up. Sure, he didn't get more than 50% of all the votes cast, but he got more votes than any of the other parties. That's considered a majority in our system.

[Crockerland]

Nope. Trudeau won a majority of districts without a majority of votes.

Now, you could argue that what the Liberals and NDP have in common make it similar to a popular-vote victory, but that still doesn't make it the same thing.

He won by both. Keep in mind our politics aren't bipartisan, there are 5 major federal parties (well, really only 3 that have any actual power, but that's beside the point) which divy the votes up. Sure, he didn't get more than 50% of all the votes cast, but he got more votes than any of the other parties. That's considered a majority in our system.

Then your system is backwards.

[Pope Joan]

I just heard Trudeau say that if Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA he would be open to discuss it.

Good for him.

I foresee little change in economic relations if we do away with NAFTA because so many businesses are already legally embedded in both nations, through partnerships, mergers and other arrangements.

I just wish our local Burger King would start selling Tim Horton's donuts. For shame!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

He won by both. Keep in mind our politics aren't bipartisan, there are 5 major federal parties (well, really only 3 that have any actual power, but that's beside the point) which divy the votes up. Sure, he didn't get more than 50% of all the votes cast, but he got more votes than any of the other parties. That's considered a majority in our system.

Then your system is backwards.

Nope, every Electoral District elected it's own candidate for parliament to speak for that Electoral District.

This is set up so that the system is more representative of what the citizens Canada want not only for their Electoral District but for the country.

He won 184 seats, giving him not only the PMs seat but a majority.

He won 6,943,276 with his closest rival only getting 5,613,614 .

Now, isn't that a better system then say one candidate wining the popular vote by 300,000 and still losing?

[Camicon]

He won by both. Keep in mind our politics aren't bipartisan, there are 5 major federal parties (well, really only 3 that have any actual power, but that's beside the point) which divy the votes up. Sure, he didn't get more than 50% of all the votes cast, but he got more votes than any of the other parties. That's considered a majority in our system.

Then your system is backwards.

It's FPTP, just like the USA's. And, if Trudeau follows through on his campaign promise, we won't be using it come next election.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I just heard Trudeau say that if Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA he would be open to discuss it.

Good for him.

I foresee little change in economic relations if we do away with NAFTA because so many businesses are already legally embedded in both nations, through partnerships, mergers and other arrangements.

I just wish our local Burger King would start selling Tim Horton's donuts. For shame!

If he want's to negotiate with our biggest ally because biggest ally wants to, I say do it.

Also, good on him for staying out of us politics so we can maintain good relations.

[Napkiraly]

Please reject Leitch, Canada. At least one country needs to be free of the populist shit.

You know, maybe if more of those anti-Trump Americans would actually follow through on their promise to move to Canada after a Trump victory, we actually would be "free of the populist shit."

That would require them a) be able to move here b) become citizens in time of the next election.

[Oneracon]

I just heard Trudeau say that if Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA he would be open to discuss it.

Good for him.

I foresee little change in economic relations if we do away with NAFTA because so many businesses are already legally embedded in both nations, through partnerships, mergers and other arrangements.

I just wish our local Burger King would start selling Tim Horton's donuts. For shame!

I'm concerned that if we do end up renegotiating NAFTA (which Trudeau seems to be keen on since he's all about those pro-corporate trade deals) that water is going to go on the table, if you'll forgive me for channeling Maude Barlow.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I just heard Trudeau say that if Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA he would be open to discuss it.

Good for him.

I foresee little change in economic relations if we do away with NAFTA because so many businesses are already legally embedded in both nations, through partnerships, mergers and other arrangements.

I just wish our local Burger King would start selling Tim Horton's donuts. For shame!

I'm concerned that if we do end up renegotiating NAFTA (which Trudeau seems to be keen on since he's all about those pro-corporate trade deals) that water is going to go on the table, if you'll forgive me for channeling Maude Barlow.

The only problem there is that IGN will rate it 7.8/10.

[Crockerland]

Then your system is backwards.

Nope, every Electoral District elected it's own candidate for parliament to speak for that Electoral District.

Okay...

This is set up so that the system is more representative of what the citizens Canada want not only for their Electoral District but for the country.

He won 184 seats, giving him not only the PMs seat but a majority.

Right...

He won 6,943,276 with his closest rival only getting 5,613,614 .

He got 6,943,276 out of 17,451,328, he became prime minister of Canada with less than 40% of the vote. Ten and a half million people came to the polls to vote against Trudeau and he won anyways thanks to seven million Canadians voting for him.

Why on Earth would you be in favor of the will of 7 million people being more important than that of 10.5 million?

Because it's 2015

Now, isn't that a better system then say one candidate wining the popular vote by 300,000 and still losing?

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

[Geilinor]

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

They have the same system we use to elect the House but with more parties.

[Oneracon]

Nope, every Electoral District elected it's own candidate for parliament to speak for that Electoral District.

Okay...

This is set up so that the system is more representative of what the citizens Canada want not only for their Electoral District but for the country.

He won 184 seats, giving him not only the PMs seat but a majority.

Right...

He won 6,943,276 with his closest rival only getting 5,613,614 .

He got 6,943,276 out of 17,451,328, he became prime minister of Canada with less than 40% of the vote. Ten and a half million people came to the polls to vote against Trudeau and he won anyways thanks to seven million Canadians voting for him.

Why on Earth would you be in favor of the will of 7 million people being more important than that of 10.5 million?

Because it's 2015

Now, isn't that a better system then say one candidate wining the popular vote by 300,000 and still losing?

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

Well first off, as has been said before, Canada is a multiparty system with legitimately competitive third, fourth, and fifth parties so there are very rarely true majorities based on the nationwide popular vote.

Secondly, Canadian federal elections are in reality 338 local riding elections to select MPs, a much smaller scale than the statewide results which are used by the US electoral college. Since there is only one vote, for a federal MP with no direct vote for Prime Minister, this can cause distortion in seat count.

And finally, we recognize there are flaws in the system... that's why the Special Commitee on Electoral Reform has been criss-crossing the country and hearing from experts to recommend a new system for electing MPs.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Nope, every Electoral District elected it's own candidate for parliament to speak for that Electoral District.

Okay...

This is set up so that the system is more representative of what the citizens Canada want not only for their Electoral District but for the country.

He won 184 seats, giving him not only the PMs seat but a majority.

Right...

He won 6,943,276 with his closest rival only getting 5,613,614 .

He got 6,943,276 out of 17,451,328, he became prime minister of Canada with less than 40% of the vote. Ten and a half million people came to the polls to vote against Trudeau and he won anyways thanks to seven million Canadians voting for him.

Why on Earth would you be in favor of the will of 7 million people being more important than that of 10.5 million?

Because it's 2015

Now, isn't that a better system then say one candidate wining the popular vote by 300,000 and still losing?

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

What Oneracon said.

[Crockerland]

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

They have the same system we use to elect the House but with more parties.

Okay...

Right...

He got 6,943,276 out of 17,451,328, he became prime minister of Canada with less than 40% of the vote. Ten and a half million people came to the polls to vote against Trudeau and he won anyways thanks to seven million Canadians voting for him.

Why on Earth would you be in favor of the will of 7 million people being more important than that of 10.5 million?

Because it's 2015

A system in which someone wins with 39% of the vote is better than one in which someone wins with 49.8% of the vote? In what world?

Well first off, as has been said before, Canada is a multiparty system with legitimately competitive third, fourth, and fifth parties so there are very rarely true majorities based on the nationwide popular vote.

Secondly, Canadian federal elections are in reality 338 local riding elections to select MPs, a much smaller scale than the statewide results which are used by the US electoral college. Since there is only one vote, for a federal MP with no direct vote for Prime Minister, this can cause distortion in seat count.

And finally, we recognize there are flaws in the system... that's why the Special Commitee on Electoral Reform has been criss-crossing the country and hearing from experts to recommend a new system for electing MPs.

Canada's current electoral districts make the votes of people from some places matter more than those of people from elsewhere. For example, Quebec's population is 0.61 x of that of Ontario (7,903,001 to 12,851,821), but Quebec has 0.70 x it's districts (75 to 106). These disproportionate representations were at least partially responsible for Trudeau getting 39% of the vote but his party controlling 54% of Parliament (which is absolutely obscene).

The easiest way to fix this would of course be to take the least populated province, which is Nunavut, and set it's population (33,897) as the requirement for 1 district. Yukon and the Northwest territories both have less than 2x the population of Nunavut so they get 1 district each. Prince Edward Island has a population of 140,204 so it gets 4 districts, Newfoundland & Labrador gets 15, New Brunswick gets 22, Nova Scotia gets 28, Saskatchewan gets 31, Manitoba gets 35, Alberta gets 108, British Columbia gets 130, Quebec gets 234, and Ontario gets 379. So why hasn't Canada done that already?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They have the same system we use to elect the House but with more parties.

Well first off, as has been said before, Canada is a multiparty system with legitimately competitive third, fourth, and fifth parties so there are very rarely true majorities based on the nationwide popular vote.

Secondly, Canadian federal elections are in reality 338 local riding elections to select MPs, a much smaller scale than the statewide results which are used by the US electoral college. Since there is only one vote, for a federal MP with no direct vote for Prime Minister, this can cause distortion in seat count.

And finally, we recognize there are flaws in the system... that's why the Special Commitee on Electoral Reform has been criss-crossing the country and hearing from experts to recommend a new system for electing MPs.

Canada's current electoral districts make the votes of people from some places matter more than those of people from elsewhere. For example, Quebec's population is 0.61 x of that of Ontario (7,903,001 to 12,851,821), but Quebec has 0.70 x it's districts (75 to 106). These disproportionate representations were at least partially responsible for Trudeau getting 39% of the vote but his party controlling 54% of Parliament (which is absolutely obscene).

The easiest way to fix this would of course be to take the least populated province, which is Nunavut, and set it's population (33,897) as the requirement for 1 district. Yukon and the Northwest territories both have less than 2x the population of Nunavut so they get 1 district each. Prince Edward Island has a population of 140,204 so it gets 4 districts, Newfoundland & Labrador gets 15, New Brunswick gets 22, Nova Scotia gets 28, Saskatchewan gets 31, Manitoba gets 35, Alberta gets 108, British Columbia gets 130, Quebec gets 234, and Ontario gets 379. So why hasn't Canada done that already?

You're forgetting that Ontario gave him the mosts seats. The most populated province.

Could you please stop sarcastically saying that? Its getting on my nerves.

[Oneracon]

They have the same system we use to elect the House but with more parties.

Well first off, as has been said before, Canada is a multiparty system with legitimately competitive third, fourth, and fifth parties so there are very rarely true majorities based on the nationwide popular vote.

Secondly, Canadian federal elections are in reality 338 local riding elections to select MPs, a much smaller scale than the statewide results which are used by the US electoral college. Since there is only one vote, for a federal MP with no direct vote for Prime Minister, this can cause distortion in seat count.

And finally, we recognize there are flaws in the system... that's why the Special Commitee on Electoral Reform has been criss-crossing the country and hearing from experts to recommend a new system for electing MPs.

Canada's current electoral districts make the votes of people from some places matter more than those of people from elsewhere. For example, Quebec's population is 0.61 x of that of Ontario (7,903,001 to 12,851,821), but Quebec has 0.70 x it's districts (75 to 106). These disproportionate representations were at least partially responsible for Trudeau getting 39% of the vote but his party controlling 54% of Parliament (which is absolutely obscene).

The easiest way to fix this would of course be to take the least populated province, which is Nunavut, and set it's population (33,897) as the requirement for 1 district. Yukon and the Northwest territories both have less than 2x the population of Nunavut so they get 1 district each. Prince Edward Island has a population of 140,204 so it gets 4 districts, Newfoundland & Labrador gets 15, New Brunswick gets 22, Nova Scotia gets 28, Saskatchewan gets 31, Manitoba gets 35, Alberta gets 108, British Columbia gets 130, Quebec gets 234, and Ontario gets 379. So why hasn't Canada done that already?

The main reason why the government hasn't done that already is because that would be 989 MPs in the House of Commons! That is an utterly ludicrous amount for a country of only 35 million people, in fact it's nearly double the amount of seats in the Lok Sabha (lower house) of India's parliament... and India has 34 times the population of Canada.

Second: Nunavut, Yukon, and NWT are territories and not provinces which gives them different and more limited rights regarding representation. Because of that, they are not factored into determining electoral quotients and are instead automatically given one seat each in both houses of Parliament under Section 51(2) and Section 22 of the amended Constitution Act, 1867.

Third: The current system of redistricting was actually just updated in 2012... both to give greater numbers of seats to fast growing provinces like Ontario, BC, and Alberta while also not allowing the number of seats in other provinces to drop drastically.

Fourth: actually, as Herp said, the key to Trudeau's victory was the broad sweep of Ontario ridings (just like it is for most governments). Under your proposed system he still would have won.