Canadian Election Catch-All

So elections are next Monday. I voted in advanced polls on Saturday. Know a quite a few other people that did as well. I was out of the country for the last election and couldn't be bothered to vote.

If the USA gets a presidential election thread a year before it happens, I figure it's fair to have a Canadian election thread less than two weeks before.

What say you fellow Canadians, excited?

I voted on Thanksgiving Monday with my wife. I don't pay much attention to the parties so I mostly just gave my wife a double of her vote. I was leaning the way I voted anyways but she got the nudge.

If anything, I'm excited that we may finally have a change in government. My prediction is Conservative Minority - and we'll see what happens then. I'm more excited about what might happen AFTER the election in terms of a possible governing coalition.

Not really excited about my riding, though - I live in a stronghold riding so my vote is basically useless. Come to think of it, I've always lived in stronghold ridings since I was able to vote, so politics is essentially a spectator sport for me.

Already voted.

My Facebook leans very NDP/Liberal/Green and that's what my feed gets slammed with.

I haven't joined the 'going away Stephen Harper party' event. Just not that confident hes actually going away.

Hardly enamored with other choices but ffs does Harper just need to go away.

Dysplastic wrote:

If anything, I'm excited that we may finally have a change in government. My prediction is Conservative Minority - and we'll see what happens then. I'm more excited about what might happen AFTER the election in terms of a possible governing coalition.

Not really excited about my riding, though - I live in a stronghold riding so my vote is basically useless. Come to think of it, I've always lived in stronghold ridings since I was able to vote, so politics is essentially a spectator sport for me.

I would generally prefer this. Living in Ohio, in the US, means I have campaign ads like non-stop for months.

Big fan of the Anyone But Harper Party.

Anyone who can save your scientific, historical and statistical information would be a good outcome...

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Big fan of the Anyone But Harper Party.

That's where I'm at. A little worried that it'll split the vote but overall, I get the feeling Harper will be gone.

I'm curious about whether there will actually be a change in voting procedure. All the parties except conservative have said they would make elections more representational. Not surprising the conservatives haven't as the status quo has them collecting all the right votes while the left votes are split.

We need a better election process other than first past the post, which is fine for a two party system, but not when you have 4 parties (or 5 in Quebec) plus independents. Otherwise we will continue to get majority governments with only 38% of the votes.

I don't think we are going to see any sort of coalition government. The Liberals have already said they wouldn't even consider it. It's possible that they were just posturing in order to look strong and confident, but I hope they reconsider in the face of a Conservative minority. Should have done it with the last minority, really.

Strewth wrote:

I'm curious about whether there will actually be a change in voting procedure. All the parties except conservative have said they would make elections more representational. Not surprising the conservatives haven't as the status quo has them collecting all the right votes while the left votes are split.

We need a better election process other than first past the post, which is fine for a two party system, but not when you have 4 parties (or 5 in Quebec) plus independents. Otherwise we will continue to get majority governments with only 38% of the votes.

Except that the representational systems just, in essence, guarantee minority governments. In the first past the post the 38% of the votes runs everything. In the minority government, the 3rd or 4th place parties are the winners, as the sitting government needs their votes to pass anything. So the Bloc or NDP run the government, with only 15% of the votes. How is that better?

That is a real problem for our country, potentially 62% of voters don't want you there but no that's cool, you take over.

edit: though Mousetrap makes a good point too.

Problems with first past the post

Alternative Vote

I like the idea behind this system. It allows you to vote for whomever you like, and not feel your vote is wasted, and it's also more conveniently strategic than the current fight for the strategic vote.

If you like the Green Party, for example, you can vote with your conscience and if they don't win, your vote just goes to your next favourite. This type of system would work well for parties that have similar platforms, and would eliminate vote splitting.

Mousetrap wrote:
Strewth wrote:

I'm curious about whether there will actually be a change in voting procedure. All the parties except conservative have said they would make elections more representational. Not surprising the conservatives haven't as the status quo has them collecting all the right votes while the left votes are split.

We need a better election process other than first past the post, which is fine for a two party system, but not when you have 4 parties (or 5 in Quebec) plus independents. Otherwise we will continue to get majority governments with only 38% of the votes.

Except that the representational systems just, in essence, guarantee minority governments. In the first past the post the 38% of the votes runs everything. In the minority government, the 3rd or 4th place parties are the winners, as the sitting government needs their votes to pass anything. So the Bloc or NDP run the government, with only 15% of the votes. How is that better?

I like minorities. It should force compromise.

This is only a problem when everyone just refuses to compromise on anything and stonewalls each other. Which I would hope would be political suicide in Canada. If you had voted for a minority party and they start refusing to be reasonable I would assume sane voters then pull their support for that party.

I rather a government with 38% of the vote be forced to work with smaller parties to get things done vs a government with 38% pretty much getting to dictate to the other 62% that its going to be their way only.

Conservative ads aimed at Chinese, Punjabi voters claim Trudeau backs brothels, pot sales to kids

Its like we are sliding towards the ugliness that I see in American politics that I want 0 to do with.

Depending which polls you check the LIB/NDP/Green combination is around a 62% vote. Could we just have a referendum that Harper is forced to leave politics? I think it would easily come in at 60%.

I just can't get over how we'll have a whole election called, done and in the bin before the US crazy train even gets up to full speed.

I'm promising my vote for whichever party will relocate the US to the dark side of the moon.

If you haven't voted yet and want to vote strategically, here are some good resources:

CBC Poll Tracker
Election projections map: Find your riding, fun to zoom in and scroll around.
Sauder School of Business Prediction Markets: Apparently more accurate than opinion polls.

By all means please vote strategically. And please vote, especially for those of us disenfranchised by Bill C-24.

Also, Regina-Lewvan has a Libertarian candidate. This makes me burn with white-hot rage.

What happens if Harper wins the most seats but not a majority?

Title of the CBC article is kinda misleading as unless the poles are widely off the mark and/or a sudden shift happens we are heading for a Liberal minority.

I'm really interested at that point if Harper throws his toys out of his play pen and tries to grab at the power or does he do the first ever respectful thing in his political career and graciously bow out.

I wouldn't bet a dime he has any grace in the situation but I do have to hand it to him that he is a cunning politician.

The Republicans should adopt him down south to help run campaigns. How he has been the Prime Minister for so long in a country that leans much more left than the U.S speaks volumes to how effective he is.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Also, Regina-Lewvan has a Libertarian candidate. This makes me burn with white-hot rage.

Ah yes, the duck-loving cancer doctor. Clearly a villain of the highest order.

Aetius wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Also, Regina-Lewvan has a Libertarian candidate. This makes me burn with white-hot rage.

Ah yes, the duck-loving cancer doctor. Clearly a villain of the highest order. :)

Sure, it's just common sense that anyone who likes animals can't possibly be a bad person.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/9j7gIEg.jpg)

Gravey wrote:

If you haven't voted yet and want to vote strategically, here are some good resources:

No, no, no, no, no. Voting strategically is a terrible, stupid idea. It has almost no history of success, and meanwhile is actually the cause of most split votes in this country, including the Harper majority. Vote for the party you want, not for your second-to-last choice.

Also, for the record, the CBC Poll Tracker (aka threehundredeight) comes up with the lead in local ridings using some bullsh*t made-up algorithm based on the federal polls, constantly giving completely different results than other "strategic voting" sites like Leadnow and even recent local polls that have been conducted. Another reason strategic voting is terrible - the information you are given on the local level is never reliable.

I fear it's almost too late and strategic voting will let Harper get in yet again.

kuddles wrote:
Gravey wrote:

If you haven't voted yet and want to vote strategically, here are some good resources:

No, no, no, no, no. Voting strategically is a terrible, stupid idea. It has almost no history of success, and meanwhile is actually the cause of most split votes in this country, including the Harper majority.

Citations? (He asked, genuinely curious and not snarkily.) I've never actually voted strategically and have always felt it's best to vote for the MP who'll represent you best, and not for the party or leader or against another party. I'm also in a CPC riding, so I won't be tipping any scales anyway.

Gravey wrote:
kuddles wrote:
Gravey wrote:

If you haven't voted yet and want to vote strategically, here are some good resources:

No, no, no, no, no. Voting strategically is a terrible, stupid idea. It has almost no history of success, and meanwhile is actually the cause of most split votes in this country, including the Harper majority.

Citations? (He asked, genuinely curious and not snarkily.) I've never actually voted strategically and have always felt it's best to vote for the MP who'll represent you best, and not for the party or leader or against another party. I'm also in a CPC riding, so I won't be tipping any scales anyway.

Yea, I don't see how if you're Liberal but your riding is a close Conservative NDP race how voting NDP helps the Conservatives.

Gravey wrote:
kuddles wrote:
Gravey wrote:

If you haven't voted yet and want to vote strategically, here are some good resources:

No, no, no, no, no. Voting strategically is a terrible, stupid idea. It has almost no history of success, and meanwhile is actually the cause of most split votes in this country, including the Harper majority.

Citations? (He asked, genuinely curious and not snarkily.) I've never actually voted strategically and have always felt it's best to vote for the MP who'll represent you best, and not for the party or leader or against another party. I'm also in a CPC riding, so I won't be tipping any scales anyway.

Never assume an "election district" (Elections Canada doesn't like "ridings" ["why is 'phrasing' no longer a thing?"]) is a lock. I once lived in a "safe" Liberal district so I voted Natural Law for the hell of it. Turns out a lot of U of A students whose pappies back home learned 'em good lived there, and it went Reform.

Gravey wrote:

Citations? (He asked, genuinely curious and not snarkily.) I've never actually voted strategically and have always felt it's best to vote for the MP who'll represent you best, and not for the party or leader or against another party. I'm also in a CPC riding, so I won't be tipping any scales anyway.

This was one great wrap-up of the results of the previous federal election, although that site is full of great articles about the topic: numerous miscalls, and conversely many "swing" ridings that were ignored. Polls in general have proven to be unreliable in predicting results already, so trying to twist that information into something useful for your neighbourhood is even more faulty. Add to that the unrealistic percentage of voters who would have to perform the strategic vote for it to work in the first place and you have a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the fact that a large percentage of people have already locked in who they want before the campaign has even started. All this effort would be better served focusing on people who weren't planning on voting at all.

And of course, the greater issue is asking the average voter to do this amount of research to begin with. Naturally, this is anecdotal, but when discussing politics with strangers, both I and others I know have had to deal with the infuriating discussion with people who plan on voting Liberal "strategically" in ridings where either the Conservatives have no chance of getting in at all, or where it's actually a close run between the NDP and the Cons already - something that comes up every damn time we go on this rollercoaster.

Even taking away how completely pointless this action is, I feel like it is a genuinely soul-sucking enterprise. At a time when people are already cynical and disengaged from the political process, you are encouraging people to vote against their best interests, to vote against someone rather than for someone, to promote potentially bad candidates who are given a mandate on the basis of winning at all costs, to possibly discourage voters who live in regions where strategic voting websites treat it like it's already a lost cause, not to mention alienating the large swaths of voters who neither love nor hate the Conservatives and could end up voting for anyone who are presented with an "us vs. them" attitude.

Not to mention that a groundswell of effort in voting strategically means that we are always going to be voting strategically. The Liberals already have pretty much poo-pooed the idea of anything close to proportional representation, and they sure as hell love riding on the "You don't want the Cons to get in, do you?" ticket.

Hmm. I didn't realize the polling data for strategic voting was that bad. Nice link kuddles. If the data was better, though, I'm not sure I'd call it soul-sucking. Voting for someone instead of against someone isn't inherently less soul sucking, i think, especially if the person you're voting for has no chance of getting elected. Helping to bring about a more desirable (or less sub-optimal) outcome is a totally valid expression, IMO. But that's neither here nor there.

As an aside - Conrad Black endorses Trudeau. When even Conrad Black is sick of Steven Harper, he's in rough shape. I don't usually agree with Black, but he does have a nice turn of phrase. Sadistic Victorian Schoolmaster, indeed.

John Oliver Would Really, Really Like You To Care About Canada's Election

Dysplastic wrote:

If the data was better, though, I'm not sure I'd call it soul-sucking. Voting for someone instead of against someone isn't inherently less soul sucking, i think, especially if the person you're voting for has no chance of getting elected. Helping to bring about a more desirable (or less sub-optimal) outcome is a totally valid expression, IMO. But that's neither here nor there.

There can be some validity in that, sure, but I feel like some people may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with that attitude. My girlfriend works as someone who connects and works with youth, and the overwhelming feeling leading to why their age range doesn't vote (at a level that could easily drastically change election results) is how discouraged they are right from the get go. At the same time they are pilloried with messages about how apathetic they are if they don't vote, they are also bombarded with messages like "A vote for X is a wasted vote", "A vote for X is a vote for Y". In addition to the fact that most politicians never talk about youth issues at all.

And as previously discussed, polls constantly prove to be unreliable and yet people treat them as gospel. The Torys got a majority in Britain despite all the polls suggesting otherwise. How many people changed their vote, or decided that they needn't bother to, based on those polls? Likewise, there are numerous examples of candidates who come in at very close second place after a lengthy period of being considered to have "no chance". Maybe they would have gotten in if people had paid more attention to their beliefs and less attention to the way the wind is blowing?

farley3k wrote:

John Oliver Would Really, Really Like You To Care About Canada's Election

Fan. f*cking. Tastic.

Spoiler:

Harper is totally the worst.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
farley3k wrote:

John Oliver Would Really, Really Like You To Care About Canada's Election

Fan. f*cking. Tastic.

Spoiler:

Harper is totally the worst.

Spoiler:

Mike Myers is looking more like Dr. Evil all the time.

Well, I've done my small part in the attempt to finally be rid of Harper.

So, the polls in Atlantic Canada have been closed for an hour, and it looks like the Liberals will be sweeping.

33 seats up for grabs.

Liberals elected in 29, leading in the other 4.

Edit to add - Elected in 30, leading in 3.