Canadian Federal Election 2019.

[mr friendly guy]

Why do the Liberals have a larger proportion of seats vs their popular vote? Does Canada have gerrymandering or are the seats allocated independently (like in Australia).

[The Romulan Republic]

So far the conservatives have more of the popular vote than the liberals so far, but 30+ fewer seats.

I’m sure those who advocate for the popular vote are distraught at the news that the conservatives don’t appear to be getting their fair share of the seats

How about waiting for my actual response before mocking my (presumed) hypocrisy?

In a just system, the party with the most votes would win the election. And I will agree that the Canadian system is unjust, for a great many reasons. However, I would point out that Trudeau will have to work with either the NDP or the Bloc to get anything done, and either of those parties' share of the popular vote combined with his would exceed the Cons' share by a wide margin.

All things considered, however, I'm happy with tonight's results. Trudeau remains in office but will have to work with (hopefully) the NDP to govern, the Greens got another seat, and the Peoples' Party got the complete and utter obliteration that it deserved. The only really concerning things are the Bloc gains, and the sharp East-West divide, with the Cons pretty much sweeping the prairies. But its as good a night as we could realistically have hoped for.

I do worry about an Alberta secession attempt (and inevitable attempt by the far Right in BC's interior to try to drag us with them). For the record, if BC ever seceded from Canada I would start a campaign for my municipality to secede from BC and rejoin Canada.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why do the Liberals have a larger proportion of seats vs their popular vote? Does Canada have gerrymandering or are the seats allocated independently (like in Australia).

Apparently the Cons ran up huge margins of victory in the prairies. The Liberals won more ridings, but the Cons won theirs' by wider margins often, is my understanding.

To some extent this is an inevitable possibility in any system where the legislature is composed of representatives from different districts/regions/municipalities/ridings/states. Some races will be won by wider margins than others, and so one party may win more seats, but the other might win more votes, because they won their seats by wider margins. I don't know that that's unfair or undemocratic- its just how it works when you have a legislature composed of members representing their home districts based on the results in those individual districts.

If it were up to me, the PM would be elected separately from the Legislature, like the US President is elected separately from the Congress, and would be elected by a straight nation-wide popular vote. I also support run-off elections if no candidate gets a majority. Under my preferred system, Trudeau and Scheer would now likely be going to a run-off election, based on tonight's results.

[bilateralrope]

To some extent this is an inevitable possibility in any system where the legislature is composed of representatives from different districts/regions/municipalities/ridings/states. Some races will be won by wider margins than others, and so one party may win more seats, but the other might win more votes, because they won their seats by wider margins. I don't know that that's unfair or undemocratic- its just how it works when you have a legislature composed of members representing their home districts based on the results in those individual districts.

It's unfair because it leads to a disparity between the popular vote and the seats each party gets. It's unfair because there will be people in districts that are pretty much a guaranteed win for someone they don't like, so any vote they make will have the same effect as if they left that part of ballot blank. It's unfair because a party that gets a reliable percentage of the popular vote (say, 5-10%), but doesn't have their support concentrated in any geographic area, doesn't get any seats and is effectively silenced. All without any intentional gerrymandering.

I don't see how any system which determines its government through winner take all districts could ever be considered fair. If you want an election that is fair to everyone, you need a proportional vote at the core of the system. Fortunately, MMP is something that Canada keeps considering.

[The Romulan Republic]

To some extent this is an inevitable possibility in any system where the legislature is composed of representatives from different districts/regions/municipalities/ridings/states. Some races will be won by wider margins than others, and so one party may win more seats, but the other might win more votes, because they won their seats by wider margins. I don't know that that's unfair or undemocratic- its just how it works when you have a legislature composed of members representing their home districts based on the results in those individual districts.

It's unfair because it leads to a disparity between the popular vote and the seats each party gets. It's unfair because there will be people in districts that are pretty much a guaranteed win for someone they don't like, so any vote they make will have the same effect as if they left that part of ballot blank. It's unfair because a party that gets a reliable percentage of the popular vote (say, 5-10%), but doesn't have their support concentrated in any geographic area, doesn't get any seats and is effectively silenced. All without any intentional gerrymandering.

I don't see how any system which determines its government through winner take all districts could ever be considered fair. If you want an election that is fair to everyone, you need a proportional vote at the core of the system. Fortunately, MMP is something that Canada keeps considering.

Well, there are a number of possible reforms that could make it more equitable, and I'm not necessarily opposed to them.

The biggest one, though, isn't on the table, which would be to have the PM elected sepparately from the Legislature, as I discussed above.

[J]

If it were up to me, the PM would be elected separately from the Legislature, like the US President is elected separately from the Congress, and would be elected by a straight nation-wide popular vote.

Why? We are not America, the PM doesn't have a bunch of executive powers and is essentially a figurehead for the party.

[The Romulan Republic]

If it were up to me, the PM would be elected separately from the Legislature, like the US President is elected separately from the Congress, and would be elected by a straight nation-wide popular vote.

Why? We are not America, the PM doesn't have a bunch of executive powers and is essentially a figurehead for the party.

Actually, a PM with a majority has tremendous power- arguably much more than the US President does, relative to the power of their respective nations.

But leaving that aside, the main reason for me is freedom of choice for the voters. In the US system, if I want to, I can vote for a person from one party to lead my country, and a person from another party to represent me locally. In Canada, I can't do that. If I had the choice, I absolutely would have voted for Trudeau for PM and the Green candidate for MP, but I don't have that freedom here. I have to choose between the person I want to represent me locally, and the candidate I support for PM (FYI, voted Green, because the Liberals were behind and didn't have much of a shot here in the end).

Also, because becoming PM depends on your party winning lots of seats, it is literally impossible in the Canadian system for an independent to become Prime Minister. Not unlikely, not infeasible- impossible. This further limits the choices of voters and candidates.

For all its problems, the presence of a President elected separately from the legislature is, in my view, one way in which the US system is definitely superior in a number of respects.

[J]

Actually, a PM with a majority has tremendous power- arguably much more than the US President does, relative to the power of their respective nations.

Only if the PM has the support of the party. A PM cannot govern through executive orders among other things.

But leaving that aside, the main reason for me is freedom of choice for the voters. In the US system, if I want to, I can vote for a person from one party to lead my country, and a person from another party to represent me locally. In Canada, I can't do that. If I had the choice, I absolutely would have voted for Trudeau for PM and the Green candidate for MP, but I don't have that freedom here. I have to choose between the person I want to represent me locally, and the candidate I support for PM (FYI, voted Green, because the Liberals were behind and didn't have much of a shot here in the end).

Also, because becoming PM depends on your party winning lots of seats, it is literally impossible in the Canadian system for an independent to become Prime Minister. Not unlikely, not infeasible- impossible. This further limits the choices of voters and candidates.

For all its problems, the presence of a President elected separately from the legislature is, in my view, one way in which the US system is definitely superior in a number of respects.

Fair enough.

[bilateralrope]

The biggest one, though, isn't on the table, which would be to have the PM elected sepparately from the Legislature, as I discussed above.

If you get a system where the seats in parliament mainly come from the popular vote, I'm not sure how much of a difference electing the PM separately would have given how linked the public opinion of a party is with their opinion of its leader. How often would it elect someone other than the candidate of whichever party got the most seats ?

Though I can't see it making things worse.

[Solauren]

The biggest problem is Voter Apathy with the Canadian Political system.
Voter Apathy is also why the popular vote is stupid. All you need is a charismatic con man like Trump to run.

Okay, so more people voted Conservative? Fine, I can accept that. Conservatives regions are easy to rile up.
However, parading it about like it's a big thing? Bullshit.

I want to see a percentage of Who voted, not who votes were cast for. That determines alot more then the number that voted.

If only 25% of people voted in the areas the Liberals won, to me, that's say 75% said 'None of you are worth voting for' / 'I like things the way they are, I figure others do as well, so there is no need to vote'. You want to impress me, get out and win a riding, and show an increase in voter turn out for your party. Winning a seat traditionally held by your party? Big deal. Winning it and having increased voter turn out, by say 20%? Now I'm impressed.

That is why I actually am in favor of tax-break incentives, during election years for people that vote.
"Here is your proof you voted, Solauren."
Then come tax time, I submit that, and it gets approved, and I'm in the next lower tax bracket. The resulting refund would either go back to me, or if I am in tax arrears from a previous year, can be applied to that.

[Gandalf]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

[bilateralrope]

The biggest problem is Voter Apathy with the Canadian Political system.
Voter Apathy is also why the popular vote is stupid. All you need is a charismatic con man like Trump to run.

Interesting that your example of why the popular vote is a bad idea is someone who lost the popular vote. Do you have any evidence behind your claim ?

[aerius]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

Sorry, that's undemocratic. I should have a choice to not decide, because that is still a choice. (Apologies to Rush for mangling their song)

[Ace Pace]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

How does mandatory voting deal with voter apathy?

[The Romulan Republic]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

Sorry, that's undemocratic. I should have a choice to not decide, because that is still a choice. (Apologies to Rush for mangling their song)

Its not often we agree about something, but... yeah.

I don't really want to force people who don't want and don't care to vote to do so. If they choose not to vote, then neutrality effectively is their vote, and we should respect that.

[Straha]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

Sorry, that's undemocratic. I should have a choice to not decide, because that is still a choice. (Apologies to Rush for mangling their song)

You don't have to vote for anyone. You just have to show up. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot.

[The Romulan Republic]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

Sorry, that's undemocratic. I should have a choice to not decide, because that is still a choice. (Apologies to Rush for mangling their song)

You don't have to vote for anyone. You just have to show up. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot.

And a pointless waste of time and resources for the sake of going through the motions of "everybody voting" when the result is functionally the same as if they stayed home.

All of these attempts to "fix" democracy by further limiting the choice of the voter in some way, whether its by mandatory voting, or barring "stupid" or "uneducated" people from voting, or setting age limits (other than "legally an adult") on who can run, or whatever... it all comes back to the same thing for me. Either you trust the people to govern themselves, or you don't. Either you believe in government by the people, or you don't. And for every situation you can point to where the voters got it wrong, I can probably point to two where limiting the freedom and power of the voters made things worse.

And yes, I will stand by this despite the fact that the Cons got more votes than the Liberals (although distinctly NOT a majority).

My preferred voting system would be for the head of government/head of state to be directly elected by a nation-wide popular vote, with automatic voter registration, votes cast by paper ballot (either in-person or by mail), an automatic recount for any race within, oh, two percent, and a run-off between the top two candidates if no one nets a majority. Anyone who's a citizen 16 or up can vote or run for any office, including convicted felons (the one possible exception would be for treason, as I'm not sure it makes sense to let people participate in a system they have declared war on). And citizenship would be much easier to attain for immigrants.

That's fucking democracy.

[aerius]

You don't have to vote for anyone. You just have to show up. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot.

Do you expect me to wait an hour in line to draw a fucking penis on the ballot?

[Coop D'etat]

So if Alberta does try and get independence what would be the implication for Canada?
One thing is, then Canada becomes the third largest country by land area instead of the second (after Russia and China).
Presumably it will be easier for the Liberals to win subsequent elections since Alberta is mainly conservative and now they are out.
Can Alberta afford the universal health care Canadians are used to by itself?

Succession is pretty much entirely unworkable for Alberta and doesn't solve any of the province's problems so its fantastically unlikely at this point. The root of the movement is that Albertan regional politics has a serious envy for how Quebec operates within Confederation and has gotten it into their heads that threatening succession is a means of leverage. This is pretty much cargo cult politics, because it ignores that Quebec also routinely swings its votes to different federal parties and can reward a party with carrots as well as the sticks of unity threats.

Alberta's traditional strategy is to vote en bloc for one party, either a major one and hold internal influence or to split from a major party to punish them for not adhering to their interests. The limitations of this approach is it isolates the province without allies when their bloc is out of power. Its an inflexible strategy with major downsides, but a large amount of path dependence is locked into it and its hard for anyone to do anything to change it

The rest of Canada is pretty much poised to call Alberta's bluff here, so the threat isn't being taken seriously like a Quebec one would be.

Should a theoretical succession happen, the new Dominion of Alberta would have ample tax revenue to maintain existing social services, but struggle to achieve its infrastructure goals in now foreign territory, plus loses its easy access to Canadian labour which it traditionally depends on and would struggle with the expensive process recreating the federal bureaucracy for itself. It would also struggle with a low credit rating (due to unpredictable revenue and lack of diversification) and either losing control of its currency or creating its own that would fluctuate heavily with the price of oil. Plus the chaos of enacting a split would scare away international capital for the private sector, which the Albertan economy is particularly dependent upon. This would make Brexit look like a picnic.




Regarding some of the discussion above, what isn't commonly understood about the Canadian system is that the Federal Government is quite weak and does very little of the actual governance. Mostly what they do is centrally collect tax revenue and send it out to other governments, organizations or individuals. Actual direct control is largely limited to things pertaining to foreign matters in the broadest sense (immigration, military, trade, foreign relations) criminal law, judicial appointments, trans-provincial infrastructure and few other smaller matters. This means the Prime Minister tends to be a powerful figure within his own government, but not all that strong in terms of overall governance as they tend to be thoroughly checked by the powers of the provincial governments, often even in areas they are supposed to have authority over and the provinces do both the bulk of the regulating and the bulk of social service provisioning.

[mr friendly guy]

Couldn't you just have mandatory voting?

How does mandatory voting deal with voter apathy?

Presumably when you have to go to the polling booth anyway, you may as well vote for the lesser of the evils. Now there are people who are just going to turn up to draw dick pics, but I think mandatory voting translates to more people voting, so its more reflective of the people's will. To use some numbers, lets take the Canadian election.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politic ... nthusiasm/

Roughly 66 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in Monday’s federal election, an anticlimactic turnout after a record-breaking attendance at advance polls.

More than 27 million Canadians were eligible to vote in this election, including long-term expats living abroad thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. About 17.9 million Canadians voted this year, according to Elections Canada’s count with more than 98 per cent of polls reporting. That translates to 65.95 per cent of eligible voters, but that does not include people who registered on election day.

In 2015, more than 17.7 million Canadians (68.3 per cent of eligible voters) cast ballots, up from 14.8-million (61.1 per cent) in 2011 and the highest in almost a quarter of a century. The lowest turnout was just one election earlier, in 2008, when 58.8 per cent of voters turned out.

So we use those numbers of 58.8% to 68.3%. Lets assume none of them made a spoiled ballot by mistake.

Contrast to say Australia who has mandatory voting.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23810381 (yes as much as I dislike BBC, its the first article that turns up when I search for spoiled ballots).

Spoilt ballots count for around 6% of the total votes cast in the 2010 election. Taken together with the number of eligible voters who fail to register, the actual percentage for voter turnout in Australia's federal elections hovers in the low 80s.

Lets assume all those spoilt ballots were deliberate rather than someone making a mistake etc. This will still lead to an effective turnout to be in the low 80s. From our last federal election we had turnout of 91.9%. If 6% was once again spoiled votes, that would be an effective turnout of 86%. So generally we get higher turnout with mandatory voting.

You don't have to vote for anyone. You just have to show up. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot.

Do you expect me to wait an hour in line to draw a fucking penis on the ballot?

What? Like seriously? How do you Canadians run your elections? I barely waited half that time to cast my vote in Australia, and they sell snacks and beverages on the side as well.

[Coop D'etat]

What? Like seriously? How do you Canadians run your elections? I barely waited half that time to cast my vote in Australia, and they sell snacks and beverages on the side as well.

I've never waited more than 10 minutes even in peak times in high turnout elections. From what I hear, that experience is fairly typical. The complaints about the time spent doing so in my experience typically come from those exercising their legitimate right not to be bothered to vote. The act of voting if you brought your card is just giving it with a quick ID check, then marking a paper sheet for a single office holder, so it tends to be pretty speedy unless there's a problem.

[The Romulan Republic]

What? Like seriously? How do you Canadians run your elections? I barely waited half that time to cast my vote in Australia, and they sell snacks and beverages on the side as well.

I've never waited more than 10 minutes even in peak times in high turnout elections. From what I hear, that experience is fairly typical. The complaints about the time spent doing so in my experience typically come from those exercising their legitimate right not to be bothered to vote. The act of voting if you brought your card is just giving it with a quick ID check, then marking a paper sheet for a single office holder, so it tends to be pretty speedy unless there's a problem.

This.

Our elections, frankly, are usually models of simplicity and efficiency in how the actual voting is conducted and counted, at least in my experience.

[aerius]

Do you expect me to wait an hour in line to draw a fucking penis on the ballot?

What? Like seriously? How do you Canadians run your elections? I barely waited half that time to cast my vote in Australia, and they sell snacks and beverages on the side as well.

I'm exaggerating a bit. However, my local voting station is a bit of a mess since it rotates between 2 locations depending on facilities availability. This tends to result in confusion since folks don't read their voting notices and show up at the wrong place, and then we get a mad rush as everyone scrambles to get their votes in. This year was pretty good with only a short wait, the previous election was a shit show with about a 30-40 minute lineup.

[bilateralrope]

That is why I actually am in favor of tax-break incentives, during election years for people that vote.
"Here is your proof you voted, Solauren."
Then come tax time, I submit that, and it gets approved, and I'm in the next lower tax bracket. The resulting refund would either go back to me, or if I am in tax arrears from a previous year, can be applied to that.

So you want tax cuts for the rich to incentive voting ?

How well would that work for people on the lowest tax bracket ?

Presumably when you have to go to the polling booth anyway, you may as well vote for the lesser of the evils. Now there are people who are just going to turn up to draw dick pics, but I think mandatory voting translates to more people voting, so its more reflective of the people's will. To use some numbers, lets take the Canadian election.

Sure, in theory they vote for the lesser of the evils. But we are talking about people who don't want to vote, but haven't been paying enough attention to know that they are allowed to spoil their ballot. Do you trust them to know who the lesser evil is ?


The way I see it, the government should make it possible for everyone to vote if they want to. But if they don't want to vote, they shouldn't be made to do so. If voting is easy, the election is well publicised, and you've got a high number of people who still don't want to, I'm not seeing how it's a problem.

Also consider the arguments on wikipedia against mandatory voting. Including that it's a breach of religious freedom and freedom of speech.



Now for a personal anecdote: If I was in a county operating under FPP, I would have probably chosen not to vote a few times because I wouldn't have felt that my vote matters. Not when the MP representing my electorate has been consistently winning on a comfortable margin. I've never liked his policies, but his support in my electorate was always so strong that nobody else stood a chance of unseating him. The only reason I turned out to vote was that I'm in a country that uses MMP, and I always felt my party vote counted.

Especially when it's been pretty consistent that the party vote shifts a seat or two between the results on election night and the results after the count all the votes that were cast early and/or outside a persons home electorate.

[Solauren]

That is why I actually am in favor of tax-break incentives, during election years for people that vote.
"Here is your proof you voted, Solauren."
Then come tax time, I submit that, and it gets approved, and I'm in the next lower tax bracket. The resulting refund would either go back to me, or if I am in tax arrears from a previous year, can be applied to that.

So you want tax cuts for the rich to incentive voting ?
How well would that work for people on the lowest tax bracket ?

Actually, I'm trying to make it stupid for people not to vote. The rich already vote. I'm thinking more the middle and lower-class people that choose not to. Given the sheer stupidity of some of the reasons I've heard for people not voting (i.e excuses), I've come to the conclusion you need to motivate them to get out and vote, and provide incentive/proof of the benefits.

As for the lowest tax bracket, that's simple. Come tax time, give them at $500 refund.