[Drogoth]

For any and all Canadians (and anyone else who wants to weigh in), thoughts on the results of our election?

[Mustang19]

I'm surprised that bald communist guy did so well.

[Trivial Psychic]

Some have said that they've wanted an NDP Federal Government, but my opinion of them is tainted by experiences with Bob Ray here in Ontario.  I was however open to the idea of them forming the official opposition, that way they can shed the stigma of being the joke party, to earning some respect.  They can't be just dismissed as they typically are, but they didn't just suddenly get thrust into the front row unexpectedly and have to take over the government without a solid plan.  I guess I got my wish.  As for the Conservatives, while I'm not entirely pleased with some of the choices they've been making, they are, as the saying goes, the devil we know... and this time there's no threat of a motley-crew coalition or going back to the poles six months from now.  I wouldn't be surprised if many of the PC votes came from people who chose to have a stable government.

[Colonol Dekker]

Hope it goes well for you all, hey?


Is it parliamentary system?

[Droid803]

Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.

[Drogoth]

Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.

I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.

Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.

The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.

[IceFire]

Hope it goes well for you all, hey?


Is it parliamentary system?

We use the Westminster system just like the UK does. I'm not familiar enough with all of the background to say that it's identical... I'm sure there are some differences but at the basic level yes it's a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state.

Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.

I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.

Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.

The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.

The election only cost us a small percentage of what we spent on that ridiculous G8/G20 meeting last summer. I know some people are ticked off that we "have so many elections" but I think that's stupid. The last one was three years ago which is just short of the four-five years that we normally go between elections. I was hoping for minority... I worry about quite a few things now like copyrights, future of the CBC, healthcare, and further ****ups with the economic situation (not that I trust the NDP to do a better job there either). Oh and that little thing called being found in contempt of parliament.

[bobbtmann]

Yeah, I was disgusted that the whole contempt of Parliament didn't stop conservatives from voting for the CPC. The first government in history to fall on contempt of parliament charges, and we just give him a majority. It's like conservatives are so blinded by ideology that they vote in the most corrupt party in Canadian history, all the while complaining about corruption in other parties. It's like some horrible joke.

Nobody even seems to notice the dictatorial qualities of Stephen Harper. Like he changed the "Government of Canada" into the "Harper Government", then proceeded to take down photos of past prime ministers and replace them with various photos of himself.

[Iss Mneur]

Hope it goes well for you all, hey?


Is it parliamentary system?

We use the Westminster system just like the UK does. I'm not familiar enough with all of the background to say that it's identical... I'm sure there are some differences but at the basic level yes it's a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state.

The Federal system is pretty much identical (with a less useful Senate and less members [every one gets a table! None of this sitting on each others laps. ]).  Though I assume some of the unwritten rules have changed, the written part of our constitution is pretty much a direct copy of the act (sorry I can't remember its name) that the UK's "federal" government operates under.  We only have modified our constitution once and that was to add the Charter of rights and freedoms.

Honestly, the biggest difference is that we don't have just 1, we have 11

Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.

I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.

Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.

The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.

The election only cost us a small percentage of what we spent on that ridiculous G8/G20 meeting last summer. I know some people are ticked off that we "have so many elections" but I think that's stupid. The last one was three years ago which is just short of the four-five years that we normally go between elections. I was hoping for minority... I worry about quite a few things now like copyrights, future of the CBC, healthcare, and further ****ups with the economic situation (not that I trust the NDP to do a better job there either). Oh and that little thing called being found in contempt of parliament.

I agree, the elections are really not that expensive, and honestly a small price to pay for the damage that Harper can now cause with immunity.  Including a DCMA style copyright system, Usage Base Billing (which don't get me wrong, is not a horrible thing, but the way that most of our ISPs behave it is purely a cash grab)(also I hope the tories don't sell out now that they have a majority).

Healthcare is a provincial concern, though the feds have been messing with the transfer payments (not that Alberta really cares) and the extra Federal money for Healthcare.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the economic comment.

The whole contempt of parliament thing is really disappointing.  Technically, they never were actually found in contempt because the session was dissolved because of the vote of no confidence was passed (which did cite the contempt admittedly).  Sadly, we instead gave them a majority and the MP that was the cause of the entire thing kept her seat.  The worst part of it is, because of how Harper runs his party, we know that the addition of the 'not' on the document came directly from Harper. Of course there is no proof of that (which is probably why Harper let Layton let the Government fall).

@Drogoth: I wouldn't say the Bloc is gone good, but on the other hand I would rather have the Bloc than the FLQ.

Overall, I think the nicest thing about this election is that the Greens finally have won a seat.

Now for a lighter note, how much fine money do you think Elections Canada is going to be collecting in response to the Australians, the Americans, and other Twits that were violating the restriction on the broadcast of election results before the polls closed in BC?  Its a $25 000 fine if you are a Canadian citizen.

[Drogoth]

On the topic of frequent elections I am fully in agreement, I just think the written agreement would placate the people who dont like frequent elections, I think they should be more often if anything.

As far as the future of the CBC, healthcare, etc. I dont think they're in to much danger, the Conservatives have to keep their newfound Ontario support happy afterall

[bobbtmann]

Fingers crossed.

As far as the future of the CBC, healthcare, etc. I dont think they're in to much danger, the Conservatives have to keep their newfound Ontario support happy afterall

Fingers crossed.

My biggest fear is that when elections come around in four years it will be impossible to remove him from power. Everything he's done in the past four years has been to secure his power. Firing critics, muzzling his MP's and government officials. Removing public funding for opposition parties. Election fraud (criminal charges pending). Lying to parliament.

 And all that as a minority government. As a majority I don't expect his behaviour to become more democratic.

[MP-Ryan]

I would have preferred a Conservative minority with a strong NDP official opposition, but hopefully the majority won't be all that bad.  I was thrilled to see both the Liberals and the Bloc get decimated, and even more happy to see Elizabeth May got a seat.

One thing... that dead horse called "contempt of Parliament."  Being a little bit of a history nut, let me PLEASE point out to anyone who wishes to flog this horse again in the future:  the Liberals pulled exactly the same **** in the 90s and no one made a fuss because - surprise! - they had a majority.  The only reason for the contempt declaration is because the Conservatives didn't have a majority in the committees and couldn't block it the same way the Liberals got away with it.  Also, as someone will undoubtedly say "well, they shouldn't govern like they had a majority with a minority" I will also say this:  better to govern the way they plan to govern than all of a sudden switch tactics when their seat count hits magic number 155.  The contempt ruling was political gamesmanship, nothing more, nothing less.  As for the "sky is falling" nonsense that the Conservatives are the most corrupt in our history, that Harper will be the end of the country - anyone spouting this patent nonsense has a really poor grasp of our country's history, and I invite them to study it.  The truth is that the Liberals and Conservatives, in their various iterations, have taken turns in varying forms of corruption and neither is particularly worse than the other, especially given that the corruption in Canada is such that it wouldn't even be called that in some less-democratic [and uptight] countries.  Even our most major scandals are sadly insignificant affairs.

I don't have a problem with minorities (Lester Pearson's still holds the record for being the most productive parliament in the history of this country) and would have liked to see another.  On the plus side, maybe - finally! - BC, Alberta, and Ontario will get the additional Commons seats their populations warrant, and maybe we'll see some serious attempt at reform of our broken Senate.  If there are two things that rank right at the top of my "**** needs to get done" list, those are them.

My final thought is this:  So long, Mr. Duceppe.  While you had conviction and integrity (traits which I respect immensely), your toxic brand of single-province favoritism and attempts to split my country will not be missed in the slightest.  Good riddance.

[MP-Ryan]

My biggest fear is that when elections come around in four years it will be impossible to remove him from power. Everything he's done in the past four years has been to secure his power. Firing critics, muzzling his MP's and government officials. Removing public funding for opposition parties. Election fraud (criminal charges pending). Lying to parliament.

1.  See my post above this one.
2.  Do you have any concept of how our country's governance structure works?  There is nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - that any political party in this nation can do to ensure a grasp on power beyond the legislated limits set out in our laws and constitution.  To do so, they would either have to amend the Constitution and bypass the Supreme Court (good luck!), or stage a military coup.  Since our military is apathetic to politics, and our head of state is a monarch that resides in a foreign country with a supremely more powerful military at her disposal, either scenario is patently ludicrous.

There are a lot of things I dislike about the Conservatives, but none of the issues anyone has raised concerning their behaviour are even abnormal for our system, nevermind unprecedented (notwithstanding the contempt finding, which has its own intricacies).

[bobbtmann]

I'm not suggesting that Stephen Harper will make it illegal to vote (although he has expressed his distaste of elections many times).

All those things that I mentioned in my previous post are things he's already done. They are not hypothetical or fear mongering. He has done those things already, and there's no reason to assume he'll magically change his ways.

No, my concern is that what he'll do will make it hard to shake him from power. He doesn't have to change the constitution. He just has to erode the principles of democracy (like access to information and funding for all political parties), and our system will keep him in power.

[Drogoth]

I would have preferred a Conservative minority with a strong NDP official opposition, but hopefully the majority won't be all that bad.  I was thrilled to see both the Liberals and the Bloc get decimated, and even more happy to see Elizabeth May got a seat.

I was also happy to see May get a seat, and happy to see the Bloc get decimated as they are you know... separatists, but I couldn't disagree more when it comes to the Liberals.

We NEED a middle ground party. Badly. I don't care who it is but we need them. If the Liberals dissolve and it becomes just left versus right, NDP versus Conservative, the system will degenerate into a lot of partisan hatred. (I give you the Republicans and the Democrats ladies and gentlemen). The Liberals need to get their house in order (and pick a decent leader for christs' sake) but if they go under.. who's going to be the middle ground?

[MP-Ryan]

I'm not suggesting that Stephen Harper will make it illegal to vote (although he has expressed his distaste of elections many times). However all those things that I mentioned are things he's done. They are not hypothetical or fear mongering. He has done those things already, and there's no reason to assume he'll magically change his ways.

No, my concern is that what he'll do will make it hard to shake him from power. He doesn't have to change the constitution. He just has to erode the principles of democracy (like access to information and funding for all political parties), and our system will keep him in power.

That's a naive interpretation.  Access to Information (be it the formal ATIP process or the informal accessibility of government information to the public) is a relatively new phenomenon in this country at best.  There is no evidence to suggest that more or less accessibility influences the outcome of our electoral process.  ATIP (formal) was virtually insignificant in the late 1980s, and that didn't stop Mulroney's Conservatives from going from majority to 2 seats (loss of official party status) in a single election in 1993.  And that's just a recent example.  Restricting access is not what I'd term a good thing; however, it is not a system-breaker.

Vote-based funding for political parties is NOT a principle of democracy.  In fact, the history of political parties is such that they have always been funded by their supporters.  This vote-based system we have now is unprecedented and, frankly, offensive.  Political party donations already receive higher tax breaks than those to charitable organizations - now, each party is funded based on the proportion of votes they receive in an election, which is locked to an initial threshold.  So you tell me - why should any political party receive tax-based funding just for receiving votes?  I don't care to donate to a political party, so why am I forced to do so?  If the tax breaks were eliminated on donations and private donations themselves were also banned then I might get on board with this as an equitable solution, but I would hesitate to ever call it fair, as it eliminates my right to choose (as a matter of interest, I disagree with the entity of political parties to begin with and thus choose to place my votes for candidates rather than the parties to which they belong, which makes this system even more unfair).

This is the same "Chicken Little" mentality that is pervasive in the comments section of the Globe and Mail (my preferred paper, incidentally) and I've yet to see a shred of evidence that backs up any of it.  Yes, the CPC is very controlled, close-doored, and down-right secretive.  Yes, they do a lot of things that I don't particularly agree with.  Is any of this system-breaking?  No.  Not in any way, shape, or form.

In 2015/6 (I can't remember if the new fixed dates are 4 or 5 years it's been so long since they've actually been talked about, and I can't be bothered to look right now), we will have another federal election.  All the parties will re-iterate the same tired arguments.  All the parties will pander for votes in Quebec.  Most of the parties will run atrocious attack ads.  And after the campaign is said and done, a small proportion of Canadians will go to the polls and cast educated votes based on party platforms and their beliefs as to who charts the best course for their riding and the country.  A much larger proportion will then cast their votes based on whatever media soundbyte of the previous week caught their attention the longest.  And we will elect a new government - maybe CPC, maybe NDP, or maybe the Liberals will get some credibility again.  Regardless, the CPC will not be locked into power because they somehow broke our democratic system.

Democracy is adversarial.  Saying it is broken because the nature of the adversarial relationship between the parties has/is shifting is silly.

[MP-Ryan]

We NEED a middle ground party. Badly. I don't care who it is but we need them. If the Liberals dissolve and it becomes just left versus right, NDP versus Conservative, the system will degenerate into a lot of partisan hatred. (I give you the Republicans and the Democrats ladies and gentlemen). The Liberals need to get their house in order (and pick a decent leader for christs' sake) but if they go under.. who's going to be the middle ground?

You are aware that the Canadian versions of the CPC, Liberals, NDP, and Greens all occupy the same political space, right?  Run a political compass on their policy platforms (ignore that ridiculous CBC compass that amplified the axes and do it yourself).  They are all IDENTICAL, politically-speaking with the exception of a few very minor policies.  They are all the middle ground.  Liberals are middle with a right tilt (fiscally, central socially), CPC is the same, NDP is middle with a left tilt, as are the Greens, but those tilts are so tiny that they make very little difference.

The Liberal Party is not an essential feature of Canadian politics, but that line of thinking is exactly why their seat totals just fell to a massive low and (for the first time in our history) they are neither the governing party nor the Official Opposition.

I agree with you that a two-party system is a bad idea.  I would personally prefer to see a switch to proportional representation (and the permanent minority governance structure that would yield) and elimination of the non-confidence vote with enforcement of fixed election dates.  "Oh, you didn't present a budget that other people can agree to?  Shucks... well, we're not having an election for another three years so you better start making some tweaks or its going to be a long summer..."  Our system is horrible for a country of this size and geocultural diversity.

EDIT:  Now you've done it.  You've gone and got me up on my soapbox! =)

[Drogoth]

I agree with you that a two-party system is a bad idea.  I would personally prefer to see a switch to proportional representation (and the permanent minority governance structure that would yield) and elimination of the non-confidence vote with enforcement of fixed election dates.  "Oh, you didn't present a budget that other people can agree to?  Shucks... well, we're not having an election for another three years so you better start making some tweaks or its going to be a long summer..."  Our system is horrible for a country of this size and geocultural diversity.

EDIT:  Now you've done it.  You've gone and got me up on my soapbox! =)

I agree with proportional rep, and the permanent minority that would ensue, although I would rather limit non-confidence votes then ban them. (only allowed so many...? even if they fail?) The thing I have against fixed elections, is. Well look at how much  people complained about 'wasted money' in this campaign. Now look at American campaigns. They start over a YEAR in advance!

If political parties KNOW without a doubt when each and every election will be, campaigns will get longer and longer and consequently more expensive.

[MP-Ryan]

If political parties KNOW without a doubt when each and every election will be, campaigns will get longer and longer and consequently more expensive.

Yeah, but if we eliminate the vote-based subsidy then WE aren't paying for it, and the parties may bankrupt themselves trying to run national campaigns and *gasp* local candidates might actually have to get out and explain who they are and what THEY represent!  What a novel idea, these candidates that actually represent their constituents along more than party lines!  Who would have thought! /sarcasm =D

(To be fair, my MP is heavily involved in his riding and also sits on one of the Commons commitees for industry, and I would have voted for him even had I not preferred the leader he happens to be attached to).

But seriously now, long and expensive campaigns are a result of parties that are too well-funded and too entrenched.  If they actually had to pay for their expenses out of pocket or seriously start soliciting private donations, there would be a lot less money spent.  Right now the Coonservatives are laughing all the way to the bank - not only did corporate/union donations get banned (the biggest contributors to the Liberals and the NDP), but the old Liberal tax rules give private donors a break and the CPC has the largest collection of private donors in the country... and to top it all off, they are funded per-vote.  Now wonder they can afford attack ads.  Did you see some of the vote margins they won by?

EDIT:  Mother of pearl, it's 00:56 hours and I have a work meeting at 08:30.  Will continue this tomorrow if anyone's interested.  G'night.

[Drogoth]

Yeah, but if we eliminate the vote-based subsidy then WE aren't paying for it, and the parties may bankrupt themselves trying to run national campaigns

There are what 34-35 million people in this country? Assuming 100% voter turnout (which lets get serious, is a pipe dream), the 2$ per vote subsidy can only ever reach a MAXIMUM of 70 million. This last election cost the public 300 million. The vote based subsidy isn't the only public funding of political campaigns, and we'd have to eliminate ALL public funding if we were to have set election dates because of the longer and consequently eventually terminally expensive campaigns that would result. Because even with the elimination of that 70 million, double the campaign length and that 70 million has been spent twice over + change + the original 230000000.

As for completely eliminating public funding, I disagree completely on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility, collectively, as a people to help fund additional democratic discourse. Mix in the fact that if we eliminate any and all public funding, then the parties that will be the most effective will be the parties that cater to the interests of the rich. How often to the ultra rich work in the interests of the entire country? Even if champion of the poor party A has an excellent fund raising structure, champion of the rich party B can have an EQUALLY good fund raising structure and make truckloads more money. This will create a serious economic bias in favor of the upper class into politics. That's why I think supplemental public funding of political parties is essential to a level playing field that opinions can be heard on.