Trudeau abandons pledge to end first-past-the-post.

[Bedlam]

But the european referendum was done by PR. It would have won under an "electoral collage"-type FPTP system too, but as it was it was done under PR and leave won.

The European referendum only happened because the Conservative Party was more or less hijacked by UKIP / Hard Brexit supporters and they won a "majority" government to put the referendum forward. Note that mainstream Conservatives weren't actually expecting a majority and they were hoping that particular campaign promise would be killed of with a minority government (since the other mainstream parties would have stopped the referendum legislation) but that spectacularly backfired, didn't it?

While it's true that under mixed-proportional representation you may have had similar results via a Conservative / UKIP alliance (though I have my doubts as Cameron was well known for wanting to remain in the EU and I can't see him turning to them for support over Labour, the liberal Democrats, or even the SNP), that's also kind of the point - under FPTP its just as possible for political extremism to take over a mainstream political parties, so saying that FPTP is superior because it's better at preventing political extremism is absurd.

If the last general election had been done with PR it would have ended up with a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition. Labour would not form a coalition with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems would not form a coalition involving UKIP, and without Labour the Conservatives would have required UKIP for a majority.

EDIT: actually no that's not true, Con-LD-SNP-Grn would have been possible. Not sure how realistic that would have been, though.

I really don't see the SNP allying with the Conservatives in any way, unless the price was Scotland is independent tomorrow without a vote.

[Phantasee]

I know Phant is involved with the Alberta PCs, so I have a slightly different perspective on how that election played out. It wasn't a protest vote based on the idea that the PCs couldn't lose. It was a vote based on how vulnerable the PCs looked and that there was an opportunity to kill the dynasty. People didn't want to send the PCs a message while they stayed in power, they wanted to topple the whole corrupt and arrogant edifice. The NDP ended up benefiting because they were the non-Wild Rose party that was prepared to run an election (one element of the boiling point rage about PC arrogance was running a snap election campaign when the 2nd and 3rd parties were in leadership transition). The party acted like it had such a divine mandate to rule while similaneously acting beholden to the business class and no one else under Prentice that the sentiment evolved past "punish" into "kill." What really pushed the NDP over the top is the late game realization that they had a real chance to win and dump the PCs out of office which motivated a sizeable chunk of the electorate behind them.

Frankly, its been a long time coming. Redford's election was the shot accross the bow, but they completely failed to learn the right lessons from it. Very importantly for the rise of the NDP, that so long as the Wild Rose existed, the PCs ruled on the sufference of the urban center-left vote that was prepared to drop them in a moment and that tolerance for the corruption and high-handed conduct of the PC party machine was wearing thin.


Going forward, the NDP seems to have continual low level screw-ups from not having any real experience in government or capable figures outside their leader, so its going to be difficult to pull the same coalition that put them in power back together again, plus their is an appitite in certain sectors to unite around a single right-wing candidate to restore the percieved divine right for conservatism to rule the province. At the same time though, I think the main figure pushing that union (Jason Kenney) is an outsider who doesn't quite get what severed the PCs from the Wild Rose in the first place, nor understands that there was a significant chunk of the old PC coalition that wasn't in it for conservatism as he understands it. Right now things are pretty up in the air, its still the sorting out period of where people are going to go now that the old party system is dead.

I think we're both partly right. There were a few strands of reasoning that coalesced into the rope that hung us in 2015. The main thing is, people were tired of our shit, and I don't blame them for it. I was too, but was hopeful we could turn it around; still tired of our shit, and less optimistic (my involvement has been significantly reduced on my end).

Jason is definitely an outsider and I think he's realized that over the course of his summer tour banging around Alberta in a pick up truck. He's a Leafs fan, for fuck's sake.

The next few years will be interesting.

[Coop D'etat]

I think we're both partly right. There were a few strands of reasoning that coalesced into the rope that hung us in 2015. The main thing is, people were tired of our shit, and I don't blame them for it. I was too, but was hopeful we could turn it around; still tired of our shit, and less optimistic (my involvement has been significantly reduced on my end).

Jason is definitely an outsider and I think he's realized that over the course of his summer tour banging around Alberta in a pick up truck. He's a Leafs fan, for fuck's sake.

The next few years will be interesting.

One thing I'll say about Notley, she is thoroughly Albertan. Her brother write Bob the Angry Flower, which is a reference only those that went to U of A will get.

Jason Kenney is a Saskatchewaner who went to school in San Fran and spent his political career in Ottawa. If he want to succeed here he needs to figure out that Albertans like conservatism because it gets them the things they want, not that their is deep attachment to it as a philosphy. Ask Danielle Smith what happens here if you look like a pure conservative ideologue.

On Notley's end, she probably needs to thread the needle of building a coaltion of all the Liberals and disaffected progressive tories and be the leader of a real center-left party. That probably involves telling the national NDP to shove off, particularly the LEAP manifesto nitwits, but is not like those guys have ever done anything for her but show up at try and take credit for her accomplishments.

It would be nice if a real two or three party system comes out of this. The one-party state was bad for the province and should stay dead.

[Tribble]

I think we're both partly right. There were a few strands of reasoning that coalesced into the rope that hung us in 2015. The main thing is, people were tired of our shit, and I don't blame them for it. I was too, but was hopeful we could turn it around; still tired of our shit, and less optimistic (my involvement has been significantly reduced on my end).

Jason is definitely an outsider and I think he's realized that over the course of his summer tour banging around Alberta in a pick up truck. He's a Leafs fan, for fuck's sake.

The next few years will be interesting.

One thing I'll say about Notley, she is thoroughly Albertan. Her brother write Bob the Angry Flower, which is a reference only those that went to U of A will get.

Jason Kenney is a Saskatchewaner who went to school in San Fran and spent his political career in Ottawa. If he want to succeed here he needs to figure out that Albertans like conservatism because it gets them the things they want, not that their is deep attachment to it as a philosphy. Ask Danielle Smith what happens here if you look like a pure conservative ideologue.

On Notley's end, she probably needs to thread the needle of building a coaltion of all the Liberals and disaffected progressive tories and be the leader of a real center-left party. That probably involves telling the national NDP to shove off, particularly the LEAP manifesto nitwits, but is not like those guys have ever done anything for her but show up at try and take credit for her accomplishments.

It would be nice if a real two or three party system comes out of this. The one-party state was bad for the province and should stay dead.

Oh, please don't get me started on the "Leap Manifesto". While I agree with the NDP in some respects, that has to be one of the stupidest plans I've seen from them in awhile.

And who was the idiot that came up with the title?
"I know, let's take the LEAP from the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" and the Manifesto from the "Communist Manifesto"! Everyone is bound to see that as pure genius! Nothing controversial there!

[Coop D'etat]

Oh, please don't get me started on the "Leap Manifesto". While I agree with the NDP in some respects, that has to be one of the stupidest plans I've seen from them in awhile.

And who was the idiot that came up with the title?
"I know, let's take the LEAP from the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" and the Manifesto from the "Communist Manifesto"! Everyone is bound to see that as pure genius! Nothing controversial there!

I find its an excellent polical and public policy rule of thumb to not take industrial policy advice from people who think Naomi Klein has anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

[bilateralrope]

Also, why does this have to be so party based?

Imagine a politician who disagrees with his/her party on some issues. Lets say he/she is in a country where they elect the individual. Which votes for this politician are votes for the politicians policies and which are for the parties policies ?

Under a proportional system it's very clear: The vote is for the party to pursue the parties policies.

With approval voting they could be electing real centrist candidates and they could hold individuals accountable instead of the party.

Imagine a group who is made up of about 10% of the population, but they are spread fairly evenly across the country. They have common issues that they share*. Can you propose an individual-based system which gets their vote heard in government ?

Proportional representation does get their voice heard.

*For example, people within a specific age range having a lot of trouble finding work compared to the rest of the population.

[blahface]

Also, why does this have to be so party based?

Imagine a politician who disagrees with his/her party on some issues. Lets say he/she is in a country where they elect the individual. Which votes for this politician are votes for the politicians policies and which are for the parties policies ?

Under a proportional system it's very clear: The vote is for the party to pursue the parties policies.

With approval voting they could be electing real centrist candidates and they could hold individuals accountable instead of the party.

Imagine a group who is made up of about 10% of the population, but they are spread fairly evenly across the country. They have common issues that they share*. Can you propose an individual-based system which gets their vote heard in government ?

Proportional representation does get their voice heard.

*For example, people within a specific age range having a lot of trouble finding work compared to the rest of the population.

I think approval voting solves this problem. With approval voting parties as we know them could become obsolete and they would have to function as glorified advocacy groups that just endorse all the candidates that agree with their platform. You can have a candidate endorsed by multiple parties and a a party endorsing multiple candidates. Parties could break up into smaller parties more narrow in scope and they wouldn't have to compete with each other unless they are directly opposed in policy.

If you are a college slacker and only care about legalizing pot, you could just vote for anyone endorsed by the “Legalize Pot Party.” If you also strongly care about Net Neutrality, you could vote all the candidates mutually endorsed by the “Legalize Pot Party” and the “Net Neutrality Party”.

When you have multiple candidates running for a specific office, having an endorsement from a party that could net you up to 10% additional votes could put you over the top and help you win. You are going to want to get the endorsements from as many parties as possible. Unless there is a huge voting bloc dedicated to opposing the 10% minority and willing to prioritize keeping that minority down over other issues, it would be helpful to win the support of the party representing that 10%.

[Tribble]

Note that I'm not advocating for pure proportional representation, but rather mixed-member proportional representation.

There are two ways to limit the influence of fringe groups under MMP:

A minimum percentage of votes required to qualify for the proportional seats (usually it's at least ~5% or so) and
A minimum number of "regular" seats needed to be won in order for that party's votes to count towards the proportional total (I'm not sure if any country does this, but's it's certainly possible).

So, for example, a party may need to win at least 3 local ridings and have at least 5% of the total number of votes in order to qualify for the proportionate seats. IMO that would cut down on the number of fringe groups from gaining seats while still preserving the overall proportionate vote for mainstream parties.

[bilateralrope]

I think approval voting solves this problem. With approval voting parties as we know them could become obsolete and they would have to function as glorified advocacy groups that just endorse all the candidates that agree with their platform. You can have a candidate endorsed by multiple parties and a a party endorsing multiple candidates. Parties could break up into smaller parties more narrow in scope and they wouldn't have to compete with each other unless they are directly opposed in policy.

What stops politicians of an advocacy group deciding to work closer together until they become a political party in all but name ?

If you're saying they can just tick one advocacy group, then I'm not seeing much difference between the advocacy group and a party. Especially once politicians start doing deals to be included on group lists. Hopefully deals of I'll support policy x to be included on your list.

Which votes for this politician are votes for the politicians policies and which are for the parties advocacy groups policies ?

When you have multiple candidates running for a specific office, having an endorsement from a party that could net you up to 10% additional votes could put you over the top and help you win. You are going to want to get the endorsements from as many parties as possible. Unless there is a huge voting bloc dedicated to opposing the 10% minority and willing to prioritize keeping that minority down over other issues, it would be helpful to win the support of the party representing that 10%.

Are you saying that every single potential politician is going to be on the ballot paper for everybody ?

How is anyone supposed to keep track of which politicians support what and how well they push their agenda if no advocacy group matches what they want ?

How long is that ballot paper going to take to fill in on election day ?


When it comes to a bill moving through government, how do you decide which elected officials get on the committee to listen to public submissions and adjust the bill before it goes back for another vote ?


How is each elected politician expected to keep track of every single bill and to know enough about each one to make an informed decision when he/she votes on if it becomes law or not ?

A minimum percentage of votes required to qualify for the proportional seats (usually it's at least ~5% or so)

That works quite well on its own at keeping the extremists out.

Though I'm not convinced that letting them have a seat or two is a problem.

and
A minimum number of "regular" seats needed to be won in order for that party's votes to count towards the proportional total (I'm not sure if any country does this, but's it's certainly possible).

So a party that wins 40% of the vote nation wide but doesn't get a single electorate/regional seat gets 0 seats in parliament ?

What happens when a party wins a single electorate but the rules require 3 electorates ?

New Zealand works with a party needing 5% of the party vote or a single electorate win to get into parliament.

So, for example, a party may need to win at least 3 local ridings and have at least 5% of the total number of votes in order to qualify for the proportionate seats. IMO that would cut down on the number of fringe groups from gaining seats while still preserving the overall proportionate vote for mainstream parties.

My hypothetical party that gets 10% of the party vote but it's supporters are too evenly distributed to get any electorate would get 0 seats under your proposal. That doesn't sound like "preserving the overall proportionate vote" to me ?

[Tribble]

That works quite well on its own at keeping the extremists out.

Though I'm not convinced that letting them have a seat or two is a problem.

With minority governments being the norm in MMP it could matter a lot if they are the difference between a government getting something passed or not. Other mainstream parties may deliberately refuse to participate and vote against legislation (even if they agree on most points) simply to make the governing party look bad by forcing the government to potentially look to a fringe party for support. If they choose to do that over stepping down and/or calling an election the opposition parties will no doubt say say "See we told you X Party was in bed with these extremists" even though the mainstream opposition parties themselves were a large part of the problem.

An election wouldn't change things much unless there is a massive swing to another party, and even then it's highly unlikely that party would form a majority government, which then leads to the other parties deliberately voting against it all the time in he expectation that the new government will either resign or turn to a small fringe party for support. Then call out the government for being in bed with extremists. Add, rinse, repeat.

We've seen this kind of thing happen in Israel, though to be fair it's not necessarily the norm.

I'm not a fan of one/ two seat fringe parties having that kind of potential influence, though YMMV.

So a party that wins 40% of the vote nation wide but doesn't get a single electorate/regional seat gets 0 seats in parliament ?

Correct, although to be fair it would take extremely exceptional circumstances for that to occur given that a government with 40% under FPTP usually wins an outright majority of seats. If there is a party hovering at ~40% of the national vote the odds are extremely unlikely that they would fail to capture a single seat in a local riding given the sheer size of that support base.

What happens when a party wins a single electorate but the rules require 3 electorates ?

I was using 3 electorates as a potential example, not an absolute rule. Having a one seat requirement may be more than sufficient.

New Zealand works with a party needing 5% of the party vote or a single electorate win to get into parliament.

My understanding is that if a party in New Zealand wins at least one riding, then their vote counts towards the proportionate seat total even if they don't meet the 5% cutoff, though correct me if I am wrong here.

I'm suggesting that a minimum riding count (perhaps one seat is best over three) as another cutoff for the proportionate vote.

My hypothetical party that gets 10% of the party vote but it's supporters are too evenly distributed to get any electorate would get 0 seats under your proposal. That doesn't sound like "preserving the overall proportionate vote" to me ?

I don't think that would be as big of a problem as you are claiming. For example, in Canada the Green Party had ~3.45% support in the last election and that was mostly spread throughout the country, but even then under FPTP they were still able to win a seat. There's almost always some kind of major local support somewhere, or else that party probably wouldn't have formed in the first place.

[Phantasee]

I think we're both partly right. There were a few strands of reasoning that coalesced into the rope that hung us in 2015. The main thing is, people were tired of our shit, and I don't blame them for it. I was too, but was hopeful we could turn it around; still tired of our shit, and less optimistic (my involvement has been significantly reduced on my end).

Jason is definitely an outsider and I think he's realized that over the course of his summer tour banging around Alberta in a pick up truck. He's a Leafs fan, for fuck's sake.

The next few years will be interesting.

One thing I'll say about Notley, she is thoroughly Albertan. Her brother write Bob the Angry Flower, which is a reference only those that went to U of A will get.

Jason Kenney is a Saskatchewaner who went to school in San Fran and spent his political career in Ottawa. If he want to succeed here he needs to figure out that Albertans like conservatism because it gets them the things they want, not that their is deep attachment to it as a philosphy. Ask Danielle Smith what happens here if you look like a pure conservative ideologue.

On Notley's end, she probably needs to thread the needle of building a coaltion of all the Liberals and disaffected progressive tories and be the leader of a real center-left party. That probably involves telling the national NDP to shove off, particularly the LEAP manifesto nitwits, but is not like those guys have ever done anything for her but show up at try and take credit for her accomplishments.

It would be nice if a real two or three party system comes out of this. The one-party state was bad for the province and should stay dead.

The NDP's biggest enemy and obstacle to forming government is the NDP.

We'll end up looking like BC and Saskatchewan (and it looks like, Manitoba too). NDP, and the not-NDP ("free enterprise coalition!" as they say in BC).

Having the national convention in Edmonton was a bad idea for the Alberta NDP, not that they had a choice. I saw Mulcair walking down Jasper Ave and felt sad for him.

[Phantasee]

Oh, please don't get me started on the "Leap Manifesto". While I agree with the NDP in some respects, that has to be one of the stupidest plans I've seen from them in awhile.

And who was the idiot that came up with the title?
"I know, let's take the LEAP from the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" and the Manifesto from the "Communist Manifesto"! Everyone is bound to see that as pure genius! Nothing controversial there!

I find its an excellent polical and public policy rule of thumb to not take industrial policy advice from people who think Naomi Klein has anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

Preach.

We're working on flipping some of the trades back over to our side in the next couple years. Building Trades is mostly onboard, as long as we sideline one vocal Kenney supporter in particular. The other guys will be tougher, but we'll make progress I think. There's already other NDP supporters who flipped due to the LEAP nonsense and the national party's opposition to pipelines, though the ABNDP have done a good job of standing up on that file.

[Coop D'etat]

The NDP's biggest enemy and obstacle to forming government is the NDP.

We'll end up looking like BC and Saskatchewan (and it looks like, Manitoba too). NDP, and the not-NDP ("free enterprise coalition!" as they say in BC).

Having the national convention in Edmonton was a bad idea for the Alberta NDP, not that they had a choice. I saw Mulcair walking down Jasper Ave and felt sad for him.

Everyone probably would have been more comfortable with the situation if the was the Alberta Liberals who were in a position to take advantage of the fall of the house of Lougheed. They were the ones with the history of coaltion building amoungst the Albertan left to center and were the leftward side of the long tradition of PC exiles going to either the left or rightward opposition parties when they were on the outs with the party of power, so would have some insitutional knowledge of governing. It's going to be harder for the NDP to pull the same kind of trick. Plus they are independant of national parties, unlike the NDPers. Unfortunately, the election was called to take advantage of their general disarray, so weird things happened (as so often does in politics when somebody tries to be too clever).

Nationally, the NDP had one perfect week back in the lead up to the 2011 election as Igantief imploded upon himself and have been constantly buffeted by the long aftermath, giving them apparently dreams of real power, then stuck with their ideological diehards as the Liberals snatched that away from them. Hence being caught between the LEAPers and their more sensible members. They aren't in a happy place right now. In Albertan terms, this makes them something to run away from if at all possible.


It's been funny to mean how much Albertan conservatives are playing Kremlinology to divine the secret hatred Trudeau must have for the oilsands, when its pretty clear they have every intension of trying to keep the economic benefits (and tax revenue) of the oilboom going. If nothing else, they seem to want to keep urban Albertan seats in play. They need Ottawa and the Liberals to be inherently anti-Albertan oil as their main raison d'etre.

[Phantasee]

Unfortunately, the election was called to take advantage of their general disarray, so weird things happened (as so often does in politics when somebody tries to be too clever).

This was me in the run up to the election:

It's been funny to mean how much Albertan conservatives are playing Kremlinology to divine the secret hatred Trudeau must have for the oilsands, when its pretty clear they have every intension of trying to keep the economic benefits (and tax revenue) of the oilboom going. If nothing else, they seem to want to keep urban Albertan seats in play. They need Ottawa and the Liberals to be inherently anti-Albertan oil as their main raison d'etre.

Yes, but Trudeau's father ruined everything in the 80s so his son must be here to finish the job.

[bilateralrope]

That works quite well on its own at keeping the extremists out.

Though I'm not convinced that letting them have a seat or two is a problem.

With minority governments being the norm in MMP it could matter a lot if they are the difference between a government getting something passed or not. Other mainstream parties may deliberately refuse to participate and vote against legislation (even if they agree on most points) simply to make the governing party look bad by forcing the government to potentially look to a fringe party for support.

Opening the parties up to attacks of "they don't really support x, because if they did they wouldn't have voted the way they did on these bills".

If they choose to do that over stepping down and/or calling an election the opposition parties will no doubt say say "See we told you X Party was in bed with these extremists" even though the mainstream opposition parties themselves were a large part of the problem.

The government party would then respond with: We only worked with them on issues x, y and z. Issues where their agenda matched ours.

In NZ the parties cooperate with each other when their agendas align. Apparently there are a lot of bills that pass with support from National and Labour (our two major parties), though I don't have any statistics on that. Just two examples a bill to block 0 hour contracts and a bill to make homes more affordable.

I'm not aware of any parties opposing something because of who said it. Instead we have National just copying parts of Labour's policies when it's convenient. It happened in 2011 and again last year

New Zealand works with a party needing 5% of the party vote or a single electorate win to get into parliament.

My understanding is that if a party in New Zealand wins at least one riding, then their vote counts towards the proportionate seat total even if they don't meet the 5% cutoff, though correct me if I am wrong here.

I did say "or". So you're correct.

I'm suggesting that a minimum riding count (perhaps one seat is best over three) as another cutoff for the proportionate vote.

One electorate seat works as a cutoff. 2 or larger doesn't work because you have to decide what happens when a party only gets one electorate. I can't think of any solution that could be considered democratic.

My hypothetical party that gets 10% of the party vote but it's supporters are too evenly distributed to get any electorate would get 0 seats under your proposal. That doesn't sound like "preserving the overall proportionate vote" to me ?

I don't think that would be as big of a problem as you are claiming. For example, in Canada the Green Party had ~3.45% support in the last election and that was mostly spread throughout the country, but even then under FPTP they were still able to win a seat. There's almost always some kind of major local support somewhere, or else that party probably wouldn't have formed in the first place.

To form, yes. But a party can then lose their electorates while maintaining their party vote.

An actual example from the NZ. In our 2014 election the NZ Greens got 10.70% of the party vote, but 0 electorate seats. The only time they won an electorate seat was the 1999 election, their first year in parliament, where they got 5.16% of the party vote. They managed to gain party vote while losing electorates.


The main reason I don't like the 5% cutoff is the NZ 2008 election:
- NZ First got 4.07% of the party vote. But, because the leader got into a scandal that year, he lost his electorate. So his party didn't get into parliament.
- Four other parties each got less of the party vote. But they got in through electorate seats.

[jwl]

My hypothetical party that gets 10% of the party vote but it's supporters are too evenly distributed to get any electorate would get 0 seats under your proposal. That doesn't sound like "preserving the overall proportionate vote" to me ?

I don't think that would be as big of a problem as you are claiming. For example, in Canada the Green Party had ~3.45% support in the last election and that was mostly spread throughout the country, but even then under FPTP they were still able to win a seat. There's almost always some kind of major local support somewhere, or else that party probably wouldn't have formed in the first place.

In the UK in 2015 UKIP got 12.7℅ of the vote and one seat.

I'm not a supporter of PR though, but I might support a system that "tops up" seats so they equal the largest parliamentary party with less votes than them.

[Crazedwraith]

I'm not a supporter of PR though, but I might support a system that "tops up" seats so they equal the largest parliamentary party with less votes than them.

That sounds rather arbitary and complicated to figure out

What you have against PR?

I figure with two houses one of them could be PR at least.

[Coop D'etat]

Unfortunately, the election was called to take advantage of their general disarray, so weird things happened (as so often does in politics when somebody tries to be too clever).

This was me in the run up to the election:

It's related to what probably sunk Hilary Clinton. Nothing offends an electorate like the impression that you've arranged to be their "only viable option" in the backrooms and are asking them to rubber stamp a fait accompli.

[Phantasee]

Unfortunately, the election was called to take advantage of their general disarray, so weird things happened (as so often does in politics when somebody tries to be too clever).

This was me in the run up to the election:

It's related to what probably sunk Hilary Clinton. Nothing offends an electorate like the impression that you've arranged to be their "only viable option" in the backrooms and are asking them to rubber stamp a fait accompli.

Entirely agree.

[Coop D'etat]

This was me in the run up to the election:

It's related to what probably sunk Hilary Clinton. Nothing offends an electorate like the impression that you've arranged to be their "only viable option" in the backrooms and are asking them to rubber stamp a fait accompli.

Entirely agree.

We need more Canadian politics threads here. What's going on in the CPC campaign is absolutely facinating for one thing. 10 or so Harper acolytes all blocking each other from the spotlight so a Libertarian, a social climber who has made a Faustian bet on Trumpism as her way upward and a television personality who still lives in the States are taking the lead. Then there's poor Michael Chong, a classic liberal, darling of pundits and probably the only one whose thought about how to win a national election of on the sidelines trying to talk about real ideas and not getting anywhere.

[blahface]

What stops politicians of an advocacy group deciding to work closer together until they become a political party in all but name ?

There would be other parties voters can support. If a party is just in it for the party and not the issues, they'll lose credibility and influence less voters.

If you're saying they can just tick one advocacy group, then I'm not seeing much difference between the advocacy group and a party. Especially once politicians start doing deals to be included on group lists. Hopefully deals of I'll support policy x to be included on your list.

If the deals are in place to support an issue, I don't see a a problem with that. If the deal is some form of bribe and the politician doesn't have any interest in supporting a party's mission statement, that is going to make the party lose credibility on their endorsements.

Which votes for this politician are votes for the politicians policies and which are for the parties advocacy groups policies ?

A party's policy should naturally line up with politicians they endorse. It wouldn't make much sense for the “Legalize Pot Party” to endorse Joe Smith if he is not going to vote to support legalization. The bigger tent parties that care about a lot of issues would have to decide whether each candidate agrees with enough of their platform to earn their endorsement. If a party is too stingy in endorsements, they may help elect someone who is even worse. If a candidate agrees completely with a big tent party, he may lose endorsements from smaller parties. It would be a balancing issue.

Are you saying that every single potential politician is going to be on the ballot paper for everybody ?

How is anyone supposed to keep track of which politicians support what and how well they push their agenda if no advocacy group matches what they want ?

How long is that ballot paper going to take to fill in on election day ?

I don't think ballots would be an issue. Allow candidates to collect X amount of signatures to get on the ballot. If too many candidates get on the ballot, raise the number of required signatures. If push comes to shove, you could allow eligible voters to nominate and mail in a list of two potential candidates for each office that they want to see on the ballot. Top 10 candidates would make it on the ballot and parties could endorse they ones they like.

I think it would be unlikely that there would be no advocacy group that would support some particular issue regardless of who small it is. It couldn't be worse than it is now.

This is a little off topic, but what I'd really like to see is an official social media site for politics that would do the following:

• Allow people to announce their intentions to run for office and give them a platform to make their case and collect signatures to be put on the ballot.
• Allow parties or advocacy groups to register and give them a platform to endorse and provide commentary on candidates.
• Give each office an official message board in which candidates can debate from point by point throughout the campaign.
• Allow voters to sign up and give weights to parties/advocacy groups to help find candidates they like. An example might be to allow a voter to give Party A an endorsement value of 5 points, Party B 4 points, party C 3 points, and party D 3 points. The voter could then get a quick list of all candidates who earned at least 9 points. Or, it could provide a ranking of each candidate based on points.

When it comes to a bill moving through government, how do you decide which elected officials get on the committee to listen to public submissions and adjust the bill before it goes back for another vote ?

I think parliament should use single transferable vote to assign members to each committee.

How is each elected politician expected to keep track of every single bill and to know enough about each one to make an informed decision when he/she votes on if it becomes law or not ?

They can do this through debate and discussion.

[Phantasee]

It's related to what probably sunk Hilary Clinton. Nothing offends an electorate like the impression that you've arranged to be their "only viable option" in the backrooms and are asking them to rubber stamp a fait accompli.

Entirely agree.

We need more Canadian politics threads here. What's going on in the CPC campaign is absolutely facinating for one thing. 10 or so Harper acolytes all blocking each other from the spotlight so a Libertarian, a social climber who has made a Faustian bet on Trumpism as her way upward and a television personality who still lives in the States are taking the lead. Then there's poor Michael Chong, a classic liberal, darling of pundits and probably the only one whose thought about how to win a national election of on the sidelines trying to talk about real ideas and not getting anywhere.

I'm supporting Michael. Which reminds me, I need to buy a membership in the federal party before the 25th!

A friend of mine is close to him, his father was the PC MP for the area before the Liberals took it through the 90s. Michael won it back for the Conservatives when the federal parties united. He was the only candidate I'd actually met in person when the race began (Tony Clement and I are social media friends, Instagram and Twitter, so not real friends). Andrew Scheer called me, which was weird because my name shouldn't have been on any CPC membership list, on account of never being a member. Met him at Prentice's funeral. O'Leary's people tried to recruit me but they have zero real organizers in Edmonton, I've seen their email list. I laughed them off.

I think I'll give Raitt my second preference, but I'm not sure who deserves anything beyond that. Maybe Bernier for having the stones to challenge supply management?

[Coop D'etat]

Entirely agree.

We need more Canadian politics threads here. What's going on in the CPC campaign is absolutely facinating for one thing. 10 or so Harper acolytes all blocking each other from the spotlight so a Libertarian, a social climber who has made a Faustian bet on Trumpism as her way upward and a television personality who still lives in the States are taking the lead. Then there's poor Michael Chong, a classic liberal, darling of pundits and probably the only one whose thought about how to win a national election of on the sidelines trying to talk about real ideas and not getting anywhere.

I'm supporting Michael. Which reminds me, I need to buy a membership in the federal party before the 25th!

A friend of mine is close to him, his father was the PC MP for the area before the Liberals took it through the 90s. Michael won it back for the Conservatives when the federal parties united. He was the only candidate I'd actually met in person when the race began (Tony Clement and I are social media friends, Instagram and Twitter, so not real friends). Andrew Scheer called me, which was weird because my name shouldn't have been on any CPC membership list, on account of never being a member. Met him at Prentice's funeral. O'Leary's people tried to recruit me but they have zero real organizers in Edmonton, I've seen their email list. I laughed them off.

I think I'll give Raitt my second preference, but I'm not sure who deserves anything beyond that. Maybe Bernier for having the stones to challenge supply management?

I've been thinking of getting a membership on the grounds voting against Leitch, but Chong is a guy I'd be happy to have as Prime Minister. I think he's the worthiest figure in Canadian national politics right now, both in terms of policy and personal quality. After him, I'd say Bernier. It wouldn't be the worst thing if the government got some infusion of libertarian influence, if for no reason to clear out some of the stupider entrenched government interventions we have (supply management being amoung the most obvious).

After those two there's a big field of guys who are pretty much standard Harper-era CPCists. O"Toole seems to have the strongest grasp of how government actually works, Riatt would be the most pleasant personality to have on television regularly. Scheer is the most generic guy out of central casting. Most of the rest of the generics don't even have enough important characteristics to be worth mentioning.

Then down in the obviously shouldn't have the job tier we have
Ohbrai: The genial old man who wouldn't be up for the job.
Blarney: The randomly hostile to good ideas.
Trost: The fringe socon who would fit well in the modern GOP.
O'Leary: Doesn't know what the job actually is, but thinks it would be cool to be prime minister and he's qualified by virtue of being on televison a lot.
Alexander: Bizarre Jekyll and Hyde between normal CPC and Leitch wannabe.
Leitch: Probably the most evil person in recent memory of federal politics.


It seems that with the way the ballot works, you should think hard about total ranking down the list because it gives as much ability to vote against what you dislike as voting for what you like.

[Phantasee]

You vote against what you dislike by not voting for them. There's no obligation to fill the ballot, from what I understand. Or am I mistaken? I should check.

I should vote for Deepak, though. He's always been nice to me, and I forgot I've known him almost as long as Michael. I've been to his home, even, in Chestermere (he calls it Deepakistan ).

Chris Alexander was the worst immigration minister Canada has had in a generation or more. Fuck him as much as Leitch.

[Coop D'etat]

You vote against what you dislike by not voting for them. There's no obligation to fill the ballot, from what I understand. Or am I mistaken? I should check.

I should vote for Deepak, though. He's always been nice to me, and I forgot I've known him almost as long as Michael. I've been to his home, even, in Chestermere (he calls it Deepakistan ).

Chris Alexander was the worst immigration minister Canada has had in a generation or more. Fuck him as much as Leitch.

If you dislike all the below ballot people equally, then yes that's how it works. If you have a relatively like and dislike of the downlisters it helps to rank everyone. So if you really want to be against Leitch and Alexander for example, you put them below everyone else.

Deepak is awesome. I want him on my televison way more often. I just don't get the impression he can handle the job.