23rd Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau

[RDMcG]

Minority gov with Libs supported by NDP I fear - worst of all worlds.

[Davos123]

RDMcG said:

Minority gov with Libs supported by NDP I fear - worst of all worlds.

Best of all the realistic outcomes. NDP majority would be the dream but anything that a) keeps Scheer out of office and b) doesn't hand all power to the libs is good by me.

[fttm]

Another of Just-Ins broken promises was electoral reform , and 4 years later the West are financing Canada while their vote counts for zero after QC and ON . Vote for NDP 🙄, give your head a wobble . Can only hope for good news in the morning , after the Riders signing Fajardo on a 2 yr QB contract today , Trudeau unemployed tomorrow would make my week/year !

[PorkRind]

fttm said:

Another of Just-Ins broken promises was electoral reform , and 4 years later the West are financing Canada while their vote counts for zero after QC and ON . Vote for NDP ??, give your head a wobble . Can only hope for good news in the morning , after the Riders signing Fajardo on a 2 yr QB contract today , Trudeau unemployed tomorrow would make my week/year !

Likewise, he put me off emigrating there with his immigration / refugee rulings.

[BlackLabel]

“ Liberals win minority government”

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/...

[A Winner Is You]

I think you mean "minority to form a government"

[hyphen]

Boo, was hoping Trudeau would be gone. Will look up the turnout and vote increase later unless anyone has them to hand?

[Countdown]

PorkRind said:

Likewise, he put me off emigrating there with his immigration / refugee rulings.

....so you'd only want to move to a Country which had quite strict migration rules (meaning that they probably wouldn't let you in)?

[BlackLabel]

Modern politics.......

A photograph of a photographer taking a photograph of Justin Trudeau, signing a photograph, of himself:

[Davos123]

PorkRind said:

Likewise, he put me off emigrating there with his immigration / refugee rulings.

How so?

[PRTVR]

From my Canadian friends, it looks like the movement for separation is picking up, Western Canada wants to go alone

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2019/10/22/canada-...

[Davos123]

Can't possibly see why Trudeau reneged on his "this will be the last first past the post election" promise 4 years ago.



slimey fking .

[JagLover]

Davos123 said:

Can't possibly see why Trudeau reneged on his "this will be the last first past the post election" promise 4 years ago.



slimey fking .

From the post above yours I think the Conservatives piled up those votes in western Canada, hence the lower number of seats.

Unhealthy for any country to have separate different regions with such diverging voting patterns.

[Mothersruin]

JagLover said:

Davos123 said:

Can't possibly see why Trudeau reneged on his "this will be the last first past the post election" promise 4 years ago.



slimey fking .

From the post above yours I think the Conservatives piled up those votes in western Canada, hence the lower number of seats.

Unhealthy for any country to have separate different regions with such diverging voting patterns.

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

[Davos123]

Mothersruin said:

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

Yes, we have pretty much exactly the same electoral system as Canada.

[Halb]

Mothersruin said:

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

Labour had 40% and the torys, 42%, but the seats were 262 and 317 respectively. Going off those numbers, I don't think labour got the good deal.

[Mothersruin]

Halb said:

Mothersruin said:

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

Labour had 40% and the torys, 42%, but the seats were 262 and 317 respectively. Going off those numbers, I don't think labour got the good deal.

Fair enough. I thought there were boundary issues that they keep dodging, or was that the Lib Dems. Normal politics seems so long ago...

[gizlaroc]

PorkRind said:

Likewise, he put me off emigrating there with his immigration / refugee rulings.

Did you have to black up and change gender to get in?

[Davos123]

Halb said:

Mothersruin said:

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

Labour had 40% and the torys, 42%, but the seats were 262 and 317 respectively. Going off those numbers, I don't think labour got the good deal.

It fluctuates between benefitting the main 2 parties. In 2001 Labour got 413 seats from 41% whilst the Tories, with 32% got 166.

I'm not going to comment on whether FPTP is the best system or not, but in both Canada and the UK (and I presume other countries with it but I'm more ignorant there) it benefits the main 2 parties at the expense of smaller or new, national parties. It's a double-whammy, too. Not only do smaller parties get fewer seats compared to vote share, the system also discourages people from voting for them because they are likely ideologically opposed to one of the big 2 parties and will vote tactically to keep them out. The NDP in Canada and the Lib Dems would likely get more votes under a system like PR, as well as more seats for the votes they do get.

The other beneficiary of FPTP are single-issue parties (though usually where that single issue is related to sovereignty) see the SNP and the Quebec National Party cleaning up almost all seats despite their position only being shared by half or fewer of voters.

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

Mothersruin said:

Don't we have a similar anomaly where Labour can have far less of the actual vote but more seats?

Labour had 40% and the torys, 42%, but the seats were 262 and 317 respectively. Going off those numbers, I don't think labour got the good deal.

You can't go off one set of numbers. That's how FPTP is supposed to work; the party with the greater popular vote gets disproportionately more seats. However... as the boundaries stand the Tories get far fewer seats for each % more of the vote than Labour. For example in 2005 Labour won 37% of the vote and 356 seats, vs. 33% and 198 for the Tories (Labour win by 4%, equating to 158 seat margin). In 2010 the Tories won 36% of the vote but just 306 seats, Labour however only won 29% of the vote but picked up 258 (Tories win by 7%, equating to 48 seat margin).

In fact in England particularly, the boundaries and vote distribution is even more egregiously skewed against the Tories. The best example was Blair's 2005 landslide. In England the Tories actually got more votes but lost by 92 seats!

Labour, 286 seats with 35.4% of the vote
Tory, 194 seats 35.7% of the vote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 24th October 02:14