2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Oneracon]

What's "yikes" about Bill C-16? It updates federal human rights law to align it with provincial and territorial human rights laws which have already included gender identity alongside sex, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. as unacceptable grounds for discrimination for a while.

Also, how is this a "pronoun law" if there is no mention of the word pronoun?

This bill was created solely for the purpose of being trans-inclusive, and is as necessary as a bill that prohibits discrimination against people who disagree with you. These are matters of politeness, not discrimination.

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.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So The Huffington Post published an interesting in depth article on the Liberals' about-face on electoral reform, citing senior government sources and it's pretty interesting;

OTTAWA — Liberal insiders say Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled the plug on electoral reform because he didn’t want to plunge the country into a divisive referendum and feared that proportional representation would lead to white nationalists’ acquiring seats in the House of Commons — concerns dismissed by critics Friday.

Several government sources, speaking to The Huffington Post Canada on condition of anonymity, said a decision to abandon the Liberals’ election promise of making the 2015 election the last held under a first-past-the-post system was reached after a two-hour discussion at the January cabinet retreat in Calgary. Only one cabinet minister was opposed.

The government concluded that the only way to keep its promise would be to hold a referendum — possibly coincident with the 2019 election — and present a proposal for a more proportional system.

That wasn’t what the Liberals wanted to do. Trudeau was always in favour of a preferential ballot, in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. The candidates with the worst first-choice support drop from the ballot, with their votes redistributed according to the second choice on each until a winning candidate obtains 50 per cent support. But the experts that testified at the special parliamentary committee on electoral reform didn’t support it, and neither did the Canadians who came to voice their opinions.

Tabling legislation to ram through a preferential ballot without parliamentary support would have been seen as transparently self-serving, a senior Liberal said.

Trudeau never liked proportional representation. While these types of voting systems tend to prevent a political party from obtaining the majority of the seats with a minority of votes — something Trudeau’s Liberals and former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper have recently enjoyed — proportional representation also tends to create conditions for more political parties and coalition governments. The prime minister and those around him believed it could cause a “total mess” in Canada, give an “alt-right party” representation, and create more regional parties that would further split the country apart.

The so-called alternative right movement originated in the U.S. and is an offshoot of conservatism that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism.

“Quite frankly, a divisive referendum at this time [would lead to] an augmentation of extremist voices in the House is not what is in the best interest of Canada,” Trudeau told the Commons this week.

Putting any system — let alone one the prime minister was opposed to — to Canadians via a referendum wasn’t what the Grits wanted, but it is what the opposition-members of the special committee on electoral reform recommended. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green member all came to agreement late in the fall that a proportional system should be presented to the people for their approval. (The Liberal members on the committee dissented from the majority, instead recommending taking more time to study the issue.)

Newly minted Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould strongly opposed a referendum, and her arguments persuaded some skeptics. The team around Trudeau had always feared that a referendum on a new voting system could easily and uncontrollably turn into a debate over other issues. But now, they and others believe it would open a whole can of worms on regional vetoes, the threshold for necessary support, and create important federal precedents with national-unity implications.

“We didn’t want to reopen the Clarity Act issues,” one source explained.

Would 50 per cent plus one vote be enough?

If two-thirds of the country favoured electoral reform but one region or province did not, should the government press ahead regardless and force them to change the way they elect their MPs?

If the Liberals chose to use super-majorities, such as 60 per cent and two-thirds of the ridings with at least 50 per cent support as was used in Ontario and British Columbia during their plebiscites, would the government be accused of fixing the vote to guarantee it to fail?

Was it worth the risk? Was it worth the time and effort and political capital wasted on something the governing party didn’t want?

The answer became no.

Although a vocal citizens group was strongly calling for proportional representation, the government contended that the general public had shown little interest in the topic.

The town halls, committee hearings, and a much maligned mydemocracy.ca survey had failed to garner much attention, sources close to the file suggested. The mydemocracy.ca survey had more than 380,000 unique visitors fill out the questionnaire — a large number, perhaps, but only a small percentage of the Canadian population, another government source noted.

“Why put Parliament and the country through a remarkably potentially divisive referendum that would suck up all the political oxygen in Parliament for something that Canadians maybe don’t necessarily even want? That’s the problem.”

The government knew there was no consensus in Parliament for sweeping electoral change. The NDP and the Greens favoured a proportional system that would benefit their smaller parties. The Conservatives favoured the status quo and believed Canadians could be convinced in a referendum to stick with first-past-the-post. And the Liberals wanted preferential voting.

Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand had warned the government in his fall report that it should not change to the way Canadians elect their MPs without widespread parliamentary support.

“I urge parliamentarians as much as possible to collaborate and seek a broad consensus when it comes to changes to the Act; our democratic system will be best strengthened when amendments reflect the views of a large number of political participants,” Mayrand wrote. New Zealand, he pointed out, requires a special majority of parliamentarians to enact big legislative change to their electoral framework. “I believe this is something that parliamentarians should consider.”

If agreement couldn’t be found, Trudeau was ready to abandon his promise.

“I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite wanted a proportional representation. The official Opposition wanted a referendum. There is no consensus,” Trudeau said in the House this week.

“It would be irresponsible for us to do something that harm's Canada's stability when, in fact, what we need is moving forward on growth for the middle class,” he added.

The Liberals had promised electoral reform when they were in third place and the NDP, according to public opinion surveys, looked like the preferred option to replace the decade-old Conservative government.

The party’s platform was silent on what system the Liberals would propose — mentioning only that a committee would study proportional representation and preferential ballots.

Many Liberals believed a preferential system was really what was on the table.

"Yes, the prime minister made that commitment [to end first-past-the-post], but a lot of people thought he was talking about ranked ballots," Montreal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, the chair of the electoral committee, told reporters back in December.

"...Nobody wants ranked ballots. So, where does that leave us?"

While one senior source insisted the prime minister was open to other voting systems, Trudeau had championed a preferential system since at least 2012, successfully urging delegates at the Liberal party’s convention that year to call for preferential ballots in all future federal elections.

A ranked ballot was simple to understand, easy to incorporate, and would encourage more candidates to seek out second and third ballot support, the then-backbench MP said.

“The advantage is that it removes polarization,” Trudeau explained.

“Will this help us? Me, I’m a fairly polarizing figure. It might actually harm me in my own riding. But I think it’s a good thing for Canada that we move towards,” he said.

Perhaps the Liberals were outmanoeuvred by the opposition parties on the election file, several sources acknowledged.

The government’s initial attempt to stack the electoral committee with a majority of Liberal MPs created a large public backlash. Just days before the government publicly agreed to an NDP motion of handing over the majority of the seats on the committee to opposition parties, Maryam Monsef, the minister of democratic institutions at the time, began talking about the need for “broad support” from Canadians before moving forward with any reform.

Despite favouring a preferential system, the Liberals didn’t campaign for it. Trudeau wasted no political capital making the case for it. Instead, the government took a very hands-off approach with the committee’s work. One source suggested the Liberals were “really sensitive” to opposition fears that they would force a preferential ballot through despite their objections.

By the fall, however, it was clear the experts were advocating proportional representation. Citizens who were engaged were demanding PR and a large part of the citizenry was indifferent. So Trudeau — and his cabinet — decided that keeping the Liberals’ promise was less important than possibly forcing fundamental change they didn't want, especially for a change the prime minister believed might be detrimental to the country.

In the Commons on Friday, the NDP accused the Liberals of reaching for any excuse to justify their broken promise.

“In their desperate attempt to justify their betrayal on electoral reform, Liberals are reaching for any excuse, however ridiculous or absurd. Liberals say that proportional representation will herald the rise of the alt-right forces in Canada,” said Nathan Cullen, the party’s democratic institutions critic. “Well, Donald Trump was elected on first-past-the-post with no problem, and yet, a fair voting system is the actual antidote to such campaigns like his or maybe Kevin O'Leary’s.”

Proportional representation helps elect more women, creates more diverse parliaments, and forces parties to work together to help bring a country like Canada together, Cullen added.

“Will the Liberals finally admit they broke their promise to fix the voting system not because it was a threat to Canadian unity, but because it was a threat to the Liberal Party?” he said.

Queen’s University associate political studies professor Jonathan Rose believes the government is overreaching and made a “hasty decision.”

“I knew the prime minister was in favour preferential ballots, but I didn’t know he was completely antithetical to PR,” Rose told HuffPost Friday. “People who have a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of systems often don’t know the intricacies of it.

“PR systems can be created so they are stable and they can be created so that it doesn’t affect representation of parties really,” he added.

If voters in a referendum approved PR, Rose noted, the government would still be the one designing the system, controlling how seats are allocated, and could ensure that a minimum threshold is needed so that “bad parties are kept out.”

“They are absolutely exaggerating the effects of PR by saying that,” Rose added.

Seems to mostly support what we've suspected here - the Liberals were gunshy about the prospect of putting the issue to a referendum considering the apathy of the broader electorate, and when the committee put forward a plan that senior party members thought was a bad fit for Canada (rightly or wrongly) they decided it was easier to walk back their promise than open up Pandora's box. I can't say I agree with their conclusion but I can at least understand the reasoning.


Everything except the concern about the 'alt right', though. I mean I'm not exactly tuned into the pulse of the Canadian right but I don't really get the impression that the alt right here exists in anything remotely coherent enough of a form to get political representation. Quebecois separatists and other 'region first' parties sure but Pepeistas? Seems a stretch. Considering the Quebec City shooting that seems like it's a bit of a callous appeal to recent events to try and cover the fact that they've backed themselves into a corner.

[Camicon]

So The Huffington Post published an interesting in depth article on the Liberals' about-face on electoral reform, citing senior government sources and it's pretty interesting;

OTTAWA — Liberal insiders say Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pulled the plug on electoral reform because he didn’t want to plunge the country into a divisive referendum and feared that proportional representation would lead to white nationalists’ acquiring seats in the House of Commons — concerns dismissed by critics Friday.

Several government sources, speaking to The Huffington Post Canada on condition of anonymity, said a decision to abandon the Liberals’ election promise of making the 2015 election the last held under a first-past-the-post system was reached after a two-hour discussion at the January cabinet retreat in Calgary. Only one cabinet minister was opposed.

The government concluded that the only way to keep its promise would be to hold a referendum — possibly coincident with the 2019 election — and present a proposal for a more proportional system.

That wasn’t what the Liberals wanted to do. Trudeau was always in favour of a preferential ballot, in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. The candidates with the worst first-choice support drop from the ballot, with their votes redistributed according to the second choice on each until a winning candidate obtains 50 per cent support. But the experts that testified at the special parliamentary committee on electoral reform didn’t support it, and neither did the Canadians who came to voice their opinions.

Tabling legislation to ram through a preferential ballot without parliamentary support would have been seen as transparently self-serving, a senior Liberal said.

Trudeau never liked proportional representation. While these types of voting systems tend to prevent a political party from obtaining the majority of the seats with a minority of votes — something Trudeau’s Liberals and former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper have recently enjoyed — proportional representation also tends to create conditions for more political parties and coalition governments. The prime minister and those around him believed it could cause a “total mess” in Canada, give an “alt-right party” representation, and create more regional parties that would further split the country apart.

The so-called alternative right movement originated in the U.S. and is an offshoot of conservatism that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism.

“Quite frankly, a divisive referendum at this time [would lead to] an augmentation of extremist voices in the House is not what is in the best interest of Canada,” Trudeau told the Commons this week.

Putting any system — let alone one the prime minister was opposed to — to Canadians via a referendum wasn’t what the Grits wanted, but it is what the opposition-members of the special committee on electoral reform recommended. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green member all came to agreement late in the fall that a proportional system should be presented to the people for their approval. (The Liberal members on the committee dissented from the majority, instead recommending taking more time to study the issue.)

Newly minted Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould strongly opposed a referendum, and her arguments persuaded some skeptics. The team around Trudeau had always feared that a referendum on a new voting system could easily and uncontrollably turn into a debate over other issues. But now, they and others believe it would open a whole can of worms on regional vetoes, the threshold for necessary support, and create important federal precedents with national-unity implications.

“We didn’t want to reopen the Clarity Act issues,” one source explained.

Would 50 per cent plus one vote be enough?

If two-thirds of the country favoured electoral reform but one region or province did not, should the government press ahead regardless and force them to change the way they elect their MPs?

If the Liberals chose to use super-majorities, such as 60 per cent and two-thirds of the ridings with at least 50 per cent support as was used in Ontario and British Columbia during their plebiscites, would the government be accused of fixing the vote to guarantee it to fail?

Was it worth the risk? Was it worth the time and effort and political capital wasted on something the governing party didn’t want?

The answer became no.

Although a vocal citizens group was strongly calling for proportional representation, the government contended that the general public had shown little interest in the topic.

The town halls, committee hearings, and a much maligned mydemocracy.ca survey had failed to garner much attention, sources close to the file suggested. The mydemocracy.ca survey had more than 380,000 unique visitors fill out the questionnaire — a large number, perhaps, but only a small percentage of the Canadian population, another government source noted.

“Why put Parliament and the country through a remarkably potentially divisive referendum that would suck up all the political oxygen in Parliament for something that Canadians maybe don’t necessarily even want? That’s the problem.”

The government knew there was no consensus in Parliament for sweeping electoral change. The NDP and the Greens favoured a proportional system that would benefit their smaller parties. The Conservatives favoured the status quo and believed Canadians could be convinced in a referendum to stick with first-past-the-post. And the Liberals wanted preferential voting.

Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand had warned the government in his fall report that it should not change to the way Canadians elect their MPs without widespread parliamentary support.

“I urge parliamentarians as much as possible to collaborate and seek a broad consensus when it comes to changes to the Act; our democratic system will be best strengthened when amendments reflect the views of a large number of political participants,” Mayrand wrote. New Zealand, he pointed out, requires a special majority of parliamentarians to enact big legislative change to their electoral framework. “I believe this is something that parliamentarians should consider.”

If agreement couldn’t be found, Trudeau was ready to abandon his promise.

“I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite wanted a proportional representation. The official Opposition wanted a referendum. There is no consensus,” Trudeau said in the House this week.

“It would be irresponsible for us to do something that harm's Canada's stability when, in fact, what we need is moving forward on growth for the middle class,” he added.

The Liberals had promised electoral reform when they were in third place and the NDP, according to public opinion surveys, looked like the preferred option to replace the decade-old Conservative government.

The party’s platform was silent on what system the Liberals would propose — mentioning only that a committee would study proportional representation and preferential ballots.

Many Liberals believed a preferential system was really what was on the table.

"Yes, the prime minister made that commitment [to end first-past-the-post], but a lot of people thought he was talking about ranked ballots," Montreal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, the chair of the electoral committee, told reporters back in December.

"...Nobody wants ranked ballots. So, where does that leave us?"

While one senior source insisted the prime minister was open to other voting systems, Trudeau had championed a preferential system since at least 2012, successfully urging delegates at the Liberal party’s convention that year to call for preferential ballots in all future federal elections.

A ranked ballot was simple to understand, easy to incorporate, and would encourage more candidates to seek out second and third ballot support, the then-backbench MP said.

“The advantage is that it removes polarization,” Trudeau explained.

“Will this help us? Me, I’m a fairly polarizing figure. It might actually harm me in my own riding. But I think it’s a good thing for Canada that we move towards,” he said.

Perhaps the Liberals were outmanoeuvred by the opposition parties on the election file, several sources acknowledged.

The government’s initial attempt to stack the electoral committee with a majority of Liberal MPs created a large public backlash. Just days before the government publicly agreed to an NDP motion of handing over the majority of the seats on the committee to opposition parties, Maryam Monsef, the minister of democratic institutions at the time, began talking about the need for “broad support” from Canadians before moving forward with any reform.

Despite favouring a preferential system, the Liberals didn’t campaign for it. Trudeau wasted no political capital making the case for it. Instead, the government took a very hands-off approach with the committee’s work. One source suggested the Liberals were “really sensitive” to opposition fears that they would force a preferential ballot through despite their objections.

By the fall, however, it was clear the experts were advocating proportional representation. Citizens who were engaged were demanding PR and a large part of the citizenry was indifferent. So Trudeau — and his cabinet — decided that keeping the Liberals’ promise was less important than possibly forcing fundamental change they didn't want, especially for a change the prime minister believed might be detrimental to the country.

In the Commons on Friday, the NDP accused the Liberals of reaching for any excuse to justify their broken promise.

“In their desperate attempt to justify their betrayal on electoral reform, Liberals are reaching for any excuse, however ridiculous or absurd. Liberals say that proportional representation will herald the rise of the alt-right forces in Canada,” said Nathan Cullen, the party’s democratic institutions critic. “Well, Donald Trump was elected on first-past-the-post with no problem, and yet, a fair voting system is the actual antidote to such campaigns like his or maybe Kevin O'Leary’s.”

Proportional representation helps elect more women, creates more diverse parliaments, and forces parties to work together to help bring a country like Canada together, Cullen added.

“Will the Liberals finally admit they broke their promise to fix the voting system not because it was a threat to Canadian unity, but because it was a threat to the Liberal Party?” he said.

Queen’s University associate political studies professor Jonathan Rose believes the government is overreaching and made a “hasty decision.”

“I knew the prime minister was in favour preferential ballots, but I didn’t know he was completely antithetical to PR,” Rose told HuffPost Friday. “People who have a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of systems often don’t know the intricacies of it.

“PR systems can be created so they are stable and they can be created so that it doesn’t affect representation of parties really,” he added.

If voters in a referendum approved PR, Rose noted, the government would still be the one designing the system, controlling how seats are allocated, and could ensure that a minimum threshold is needed so that “bad parties are kept out.”

“They are absolutely exaggerating the effects of PR by saying that,” Rose added.

Seems to mostly support what we've suspected here - the Liberals were gunshy about the prospect of putting the issue to a referendum considering the apathy of the broader electorate, and when the committee put forward a plan that senior party members thought was a bad fit for Canada (rightly or wrongly) they decided it was easier to walk back their promise than open up Pandora's box. I can't say I agree with their conclusion but I can at least understand the reasoning.


Everything except the concern about the 'alt right', though. I mean I'm not exactly tuned into the pulse of the Canadian right but I don't really get the impression that the alt right here exists in anything remotely coherent enough of a form to get political representation. Quebecois separatists and other 'region first' parties sure but Pepeistas? Seems a stretch. Considering the Quebec City shooting that seems like it's a bit of a callous appeal to recent events to try and cover the fact that they've backed themselves into a corner.

Has nobody heard of IRV? Seriously, it would take next to no effort on the part of Elections Canada, would be easy for the electorate to understand, and be a strong step in the right direction if you think that PR is the way to go. We don't need to completely gut our electoral system in order to reform it.

[MERIZoC]

This is a stupid dichotomy though, as we are not being offered the choice.

He is better than Harper.

And I think we can compare the two, being on the same continent and what not.

Whether or not he is better than Trump or Harper is irrelevant, as both Trump and Harper are not options to vote for.

I desperately do not want O'Leary to be the leader of the Conservatives. Nor Kellie Leitch for that matter. Joined the Conservative Party after meeting Michael Chong simply so I can vote for him. Though I fully expect the Tories to lose in 2019.

lmao

Most things I've been hearing in action over there are absolutely insane. Pronoun laws, for example? Seems like an awful rad-left thing to do.

Wtf is a "pronoun law"? Sounds like something Jordan Peterson would make a video ranting about.

hahaha I remember that asshole

[MERIZoC]

So The Huffington Post published an interesting in depth article on the Liberals' about-face on electoral reform, citing senior government sources and it's pretty interesting;

Seems to mostly support what we've suspected here - the Liberals were gunshy about the prospect of putting the issue to a referendum considering the apathy of the broader electorate, and when the committee put forward a plan that senior party members thought was a bad fit for Canada (rightly or wrongly) they decided it was easier to walk back their promise than open up Pandora's box. I can't say I agree with their conclusion but I can at least understand the reasoning.


Everything except the concern about the 'alt right', though. I mean I'm not exactly tuned into the pulse of the Canadian right but I don't really get the impression that the alt right here exists in anything remotely coherent enough of a form to get political representation. Quebecois separatists and other 'region first' parties sure but Pepeistas? Seems a stretch. Considering the Quebec City shooting that seems like it's a bit of a callous appeal to recent events to try and cover the fact that they've backed themselves into a corner.

Has nobody heard of IRV? Seriously, it would take next to no effort on the part of Elections Canada, would be easy for the electorate to understand, and be a strong step in the right direction if you think that PR is the way to go. We don't need to completely gut our electoral system in order to reform it.

No it wouldn't be. Australia has IRV and their system is still relatively unfriendly to third parties, and definitely not proportional. IRV is absolutely the wrong way to go. Proportional representation is fair and encourages cooperation and stability. Any other system is insufficient.

[Camicon]

Has nobody heard of IRV? Seriously, it would take next to no effort on the part of Elections Canada, would be easy for the electorate to understand, and be a strong step in the right direction if you think that PR is the way to go. We don't need to completely gut our electoral system in order to reform it.

No it wouldn't be. Australia has IRV and their system is still relatively unfriendly to third parties, and definitely not proportional. IRV is absolutely the wrong way to go. Proportional representation is fair and encourages cooperation and stability. Any other system is insufficient.

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.

IRV would allow people to vote their conscious without risking their least favourite party coming to power due to vote splitting. That would help third parties in Canada. Besides, our political system already bucks the trend towards becoming a two-party system, unlike the US; there is no reason to think that IRV would cause third-parties to suffer in Canada as they have in Australia.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

He is better than Harper.

And I think we can compare the two, being on the same continent and what not.

Whether or not he is better than Trump or Harper is irrelevant, as both Trump and Harper are not options to vote for.

Harper was in the 2015 election.

Out of the three choices, Harper would have been the worst choice and we chose to do better than Harper,

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So The Huffington Post published an interesting in depth article on the Liberals' about-face on electoral reform, citing senior government sources and it's pretty interesting;

Seems to mostly support what we've suspected here - the Liberals were gunshy about the prospect of putting the issue to a referendum considering the apathy of the broader electorate, and when the committee put forward a plan that senior party members thought was a bad fit for Canada (rightly or wrongly) they decided it was easier to walk back their promise than open up Pandora's box. I can't say I agree with their conclusion but I can at least understand the reasoning.


Everything except the concern about the 'alt right', though. I mean I'm not exactly tuned into the pulse of the Canadian right but I don't really get the impression that the alt right here exists in anything remotely coherent enough of a form to get political representation. Quebecois separatists and other 'region first' parties sure but Pepeistas? Seems a stretch. Considering the Quebec City shooting that seems like it's a bit of a callous appeal to recent events to try and cover the fact that they've backed themselves into a corner.

Has nobody heard of IRV? Seriously, it would take next to no effort on the part of Elections Canada, would be easy for the electorate to understand, and be a strong step in the right direction if you think that PR is the way to go. We don't need to completely gut our electoral system in order to reform it.

Oh I'm sure they have. The Liberals use it to elect their leaders, AFAIK. The NDP and Greens probably stuck out for PR because they stood the most to gain from it, the Tories wanted FPTP because they dream of being back in a majority government and the Liberals seemed to dislike doing anything that would be considered remotely controversial, like actually implementing reform of any sort.

[Napkiraly]

I desperately do not want O'Leary to be the leader of the Conservatives. Nor Kellie Leitch for that matter. Joined the Conservative Party after meeting Michael Chong simply so I can vote for him. Though I fully expect the Tories to lose in 2019.

lmao

So you'd rather have O'Leary or Leitch spread their shit instead? Good to know. Thumbs up to you.

[The Liberated Territories]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

[Camicon]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

I'm afraid of neo-Nazis and white supremacists being given a platform in my government. Are you not?

[The Liberated Territories]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

I'm afraid of neo-Nazis and white supremacists being given a platform in my government. Are you not?

No, because I am not a hypocrite and I believe that a democratic system should be accessible to everyone (hence my preference to switching to SRV.)

[Camicon]

I'm afraid of neo-Nazis and white supremacists being given a platform in my government. Are you not?

No, because I am not a hypocrite and I believe that a democratic system should be accessible to everyone (hence my preference to switching to SRV.)

Ideologies which are predicated on the eradication of an "Other" have no place in society.

[The Liberated Territories]

No, because I am not a hypocrite and I believe that a democratic system should be accessible to everyone (hence my preference to switching to SRV.)

Ideologies which are predicated on the eradication of an "Other" have no place in society.

Simple tautology. The white nationalist would usually respond something regarding "white genocide," under the notion that whites are purposely being eradicated through open border policies.

[Camicon]

Ideologies which are predicated on the eradication of an "Other" have no place in society.

Simple tautology. The white nationalist would usually respond something regarding "white genocide," under the notion that whites are purposely being eradicated through open border policies.

The neo-Nazis can be under whatever notion they want; they're wrong.

And how is what I said a tautology?

[The Liberated Territories]

Simple tautology. The white nationalist would usually respond something regarding "white genocide," under the notion that whites are purposely being eradicated through open border policies.

The neo-Nazis can be under whatever notion they want; they're wrong.

And how is what I said a tautology?

Because, in my experience, it seems to have no factual basis beyond reciting the opinion of the speaker. I could say simply, "People who are terrorists have no place in our society" and similarly use that to justify banning a certain group from entering the country. If you adhere to this type of thinking, don't be surprised when it is used against you.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

I'm afraid of neo-Nazis and white supremacists being given a platform in my government. Are you not?

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.

[Geilinor]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

That's how it works, the positions of parties on electoral systems has always been self-serving. Why do you think the Liberals and Conservatives are against electoral reform and the NDP and Greens are for it? Their preferred systems benefit them.

[The Liberated Territories]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

That's how it works, the positions of parties on electoral systems has always been self-serving. Why do you think the Liberals and Conservatives are against electoral reform and the NDP and Greens are for it? Their preferred systems benefit them.

extend this to all government and you are so close ahem, of course. That is always how it is, and will be.

[Camicon]

The neo-Nazis can be under whatever notion they want; they're wrong.

And how is what I said a tautology?

Because, in my experience, it seems to have no factual basis beyond reciting the opinion of the speaker. I could say simply, "People who are terrorists have no place in our society" and similarly use that to justify banning a certain group from entering the country. If you adhere to this type of thinking, don't be surprised when it is used against you.

That's not what a tautology is.

And do you think that terrorists have a place in society? You would be OK with people walking around and promoting suicide bombing against civilians in the name of whatever cause they've chosen to promote? No, terrorism and it's adherents have no more place in society than Nazism and its adherents do (in many cases, the two are one-and-the-same). I'll say it again: an ideology that is predicated on the eradication of an "Other" has no place in society.

Racist and xenophobic policies do not necessarily follow from that opinion, so kindly don't make that assumption.

I'm afraid of neo-Nazis and white supremacists being given a platform in my government. Are you not?

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.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"We are afraid of people getting into power whom we disagree with."
-trudeau liberals

Again, I don't like it either, but come on he isn't that bad.

[MERIZoC]

No it wouldn't be. Australia has IRV and their system is still relatively unfriendly to third parties, and definitely not proportional. IRV is absolutely the wrong way to go. Proportional representation is fair and encourages cooperation and stability. Any other system is insufficient.

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.

[MERIZoC]

lmao

So you'd rather have O'Leary or Leitch spread their shit instead? Good to know. Thumbs up to you.

No I just think it's hilarious that Trudeau would make you go from Liberals to Conservatives, but then again, you're the type of guy to.

[MERIZoC]

Whether or not he is better than Trump or Harper is irrelevant, as both Trump and Harper are not options to vote for.

Harper was in the 2015 election.

Out of the three choices, Harper would have been the worst choice and we chose to do better than Harper,

Yes but we're not talking about 2015, now are we. We're talking about 2019.

[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.