2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

[JWBF]

Ontario had a referendum and chose FPTP. Has BC as well? We'll see how honest the current referendum is in BC. It looks like it will be skewed to give the answer of abandoning FPTP.

You're missing the point, referendums in Ontario are only a suggestion. It's easy to say something works if it supports what you want.

Thanks for agreeing with my points.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

The FPTP system has served Canada incredibly well. The system prevents domination of one Region compared to just using popular vote. It ensures every elected member is accountable to a specific area. It also, likely be design, encourages majority governments that inherently provide more stable government than minorities. A look at recent minority governments (Harper, McGuinty, BC, etc.) shows that minority governments tend to be less accountable as spending is increased without regards for the future. It's up to the next majority government to restore stable governance. It took until Harpers next majority for him to balance the budget. McGuinty/Wynne could not balance the budget in 2011-14 in their minority as they had to appease the NDP.
FPTP has done an excellent job for Canada and that is why in all referenda, when they actually put some thought into it, they vote to keep it.

Having a stable government is not intrinsically a good thing if that government enacts policies that are rejected by the majority of the population!

Also, FPTP leads to abysmal turnout, because many voters feel that their vote doesn't matter. European countries with proportional representation systems have much higher voter turnout.

 

[APTA-2048]

It is the fault of progressive voters as for Example Trudeau got elected and back off on it. I do not think Conservative parties promise to change the system and that makes sense as they are well "conservative " Lol.

The funny thing is that Trudeau or his successor will be beaten in the similar fashion as a result in the future and I 100% gonna bet, there is gonna be a ton of bitching about it.


Should Conservatives want to change it to? YES, but I doubt they would as they can only get elected by FPTP, so its up to progressive parties.

Wait, so one side wants to change the system but doesn't because it benefits them. And one side doesn't want to change the system because... it benefits them. But only one side is to blame?

 

[stanko]

It's just the usual cheap shots from the segment of the right wing who can't form an intelligent argument without resorting to name calling. Just in case Doug actually loses, I'm saving these posts so that I can throw it back in his face after the election.

You were saying?

 

[steveintoronto]

Wait, so one side wants to change the system but doesn't because it benefits them. And one side doesn't want to change the system because... it benefits them. But only one side is to blame?

lol...I read that post and wondered what the logic must be? I couldn't make sense of it, so with your testing of the water, I'll add my 2.07 cents worth (inflation added):

"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gantry" (apologies to Gander).

Will Ontario’s vote results open the door to electoral reform?
By MITCH POTTERStaff reporter
Sat., June 9, 2018
[...]
A pact among the parties not in power — the Quebec approach — is something activists believe might work in Ontario, where after so severe an electoral shellacking, the Liberal party now faces the daunting task of rebuilding from near oblivion. Something as dramatic as signing a Quebec-style cross-party reform pledge could go a long way toward re-establishing trust. And the idea, advocates say, would find receptive ears among New Democrats and the Green party, both of which have long advocated for proportional representation.

None other than Stephen Harper had the same idea in 1996, in an article titled “Our Benign Dictatorship.” Writing for the periodical Next City with co-author and longtime ally Tom Flanagan, Harper readily acknowledged that “it is seldom in the short-term interest of the party in power to carry out electoral reform; by definition, the system worked admirably for those now in power and changing the system might even benefit the opponents next time.”

Instead, Harper and Flanagan alighted on the idea of a coalition of conservative parties not in power coming together on the promise of making Canada’s system proportional.

“However, the incentive would change if an explicit coalition of conservative sister parties advocated electoral reform as part of a common platform. The partners would then have to carry through as part of their commitment to each other.”

The Harper/Flanagan article argues that while electoral reform could just as easily backfire on conservatives, possibly enabling a “national social democratic vehicle with a genuine chance of governing” it was nevertheless the right idea for Canada.

“Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers,” Harper wrote. “Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.”
[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...esults-open-the-door-to-electoral-reform.html

 

[TransitBart]

Oh, and is it safe to say the new Liberal leader is Michael Couteau or Mitzie Hunter?

I hope that is not safe. I’d prefer someone with gravitas. How about someone actually qualified to lead a government?

 

[MisterF]

lol...I read that post and wondered what the logic must be? I couldn't make sense of it, so with your testing of the water, I'll add my 2.07 cents worth (inflation added):

"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gantry" (apologies to Gander).

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...esults-open-the-door-to-electoral-reform.html

I hope it happens in BC and Quebec. That might start some momentum for it in other provinces. A party with 40% of the vote shouldn't get 60% of the seats.

 

[animatronic]

I hope that is not safe. I’d prefer someone with gravitas. How about someone actually qualified to lead a government?

That doesn't appear to be a requirement

 

[TransitBart]

That doesn't appear to be a requirement

Houston, we have a problem.

 

[steveintoronto]

I hope that is not safe. I’d prefer someone with gravitas. How about someone actually qualified to lead a government?

You be joking Mon! Ontario is completely out of stock. Leaders are back-ordered. Lots of losers though...going cheap.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

lol...I read that post and wondered what the logic must be? I couldn't make sense of it, so with your testing of the water, I'll add my 2.07 cents worth (inflation added):
"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gantry" (apologies to Gander).
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...esults-open-the-door-to-electoral-reform.html

Of course, one must note that Harper chose a different route and stopped complaining about that anachronism upon attaining power.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Of course, one must note that Harper chose a different route and stopped complaining about that anachronism upon attaining power.

AoD

Exactly, just as many have short memories, or were unaware completely at the time that Harper and Flanagan both signed the then infamous Firewall Letter, that amongst other things, was about provinces taking back powers from the Federal Gov't and the Constitution, you know, just like BC is doing right now, except BC is using the courts, not CONniving to do it.

From the National Pest (carefully chosen to quote, as it's, ya know, the NatPost, that Leftie, Commie, Trudeau socks wearing union mouthpiece)

[...]
Once you realize that Harper’s agenda was to build a firewall around Alberta from Ottawa, a lot of what he did while in power starts to make more sense. More specifically, a lot of what seemed like high-level ideology is revealed as simple tactics. A case in point is climate change. It is one thing to insist (as Harper rightly did) that Canada should not go it alone on emissions reduction. It is something else entirely to indulge in barely concealed denialism. But once you realize that any comprehensive deal on emissions that would actually do anything worthwhile would involve leaving a lot of oil in the ground in Alberta, forever, then denialism becomes more comprehensible.
[...]

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-it-will-be-tough-for-the-liberals-to-undo-it

I could elaborate further, but I'd be preaching to the converted.

 

[SunriseChampion]

It ensures every elected member is accountable to a specific area.

In theory, but let's be honest, the odd Rathgeber does not prove this theory in practice.
The vast majority of members are loyal to party over constituency.

For those who don't know, Rathgeber was a Conservative MP who was forced out of caucus after voting against his own government. Ended up being freed to represent his constituents as an independent. He ended up voting along the same line as Elizabeth May on most subsequent votes after that, which was interesting.
I watch a lot of CPAC. Need a better hobby.

 

[steveintoronto]

@MTown :
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ot...ost-of-principles-past-and-practical-reality/

 

[SunriseChampion]

@MTown :
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ot...ost-of-principles-past-and-practical-reality/

Right so he quit caucus. I thought I may have mistaken that detail.
Still, I had a lot of respect for him and was sad to see him lose in the subsequent election.