FYI I'm going to spoil my ballot. This many elections in such a short time span is unnecessary, and this election in particular has all been US-style party politics with very little discussion on actual issues.

Congrats, we have a fucking Conservative government again. This is what happens when people who don't know what they're hearing vote.

Lets hope for an NDP opposition.

I hate you, Toronto...
I hate you with all my guts...

so with 39% popular vote AMONGST PEOPLE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE. he gets 100% of the power against the will of 61% of the population who have ideals that are completely opposite to his.

gun registry: scrapped. 61% get no say in the matter.

Marijuana laws: stricter, even though 61% say the laws should be relaxed.

Jets: purchased. great job party of fiscal responsibility.

Why we voted no to that proportional voting system i will never know. But at least the executives of banks and oil companies can continue to wipe their asses with money while we pay an arm and a leg for their services and yet, struggle to find jobs. All the while we enjoy a huge rate increase for our internet.

At 5/2/11 11:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: so with 39% popular vote AMONGST PEOPLE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE. he gets 100% of the power against the will of 61% of the population who have ideals that are completely opposite to his.

Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties, and as a clarification a vote that wasn't for the conservatives wasn't nessecarrily a vote against them. Remember, an election isn't a yes/no issue.

gun registry: scrapped. 61% get no say in the matter.

While this is up in an other thread, a registry != control

Marijuana laws: stricter, even though 61% say the laws should be relaxed.

Ha ha, No. The liberals want stricter controls aswell, even brining them up before the conservatives. The BQ, also, wouldn't discuss relaxation.

Jets: purchased. great job party of fiscal responsibility.

This should be a seperate thread, so if one pops up I'll adress it there.

Why we voted no to that proportional voting system i will never know. But at least the executives of banks and oil companies can continue to wipe their asses with money while we pay an arm and a leg for their services and yet, struggle to find jobs. All the while we enjoy a huge rate increase for our internet.

What we have right now is essentially a proportional system, just not as strict as some people would like. If you've noticed, areas that are populationaly dense have more MP's than other areas. Unless I've mistaken what you think a proportional system is.

The internet rate increase was overturned by the government. The CRTC != the government, ok? They just have the final say in all their rulings.

I know i won't make any here friend but here it goes....

I voted for the Bloc, now calm down i know some of you will flame me to death. I'm not a separatist! But I'm from Quebec and believe we have a different culture and the bloc was hell of a good party, a watch dog, for Quebec.

That being said, i approve the choice of the Quebecois, the NDP is a good alternative but since the conservative have the majority , the NDP is now powerless...

I don't really like the conservateur, to me its the tea party imported to Canada and i don't like that! Although i must concede that for a change a majority will help the country go forward but I believe it is not going to be for the best..

That was my 2 cent , go ahead flame me to death... i know french canadien don't have a good reputation but they are not all seperatist who despise the rest of the canada , take me for example! I like Canada ! But i believe that the people of Quebec are far more Social-democrat then Alberta per say .

At 5/3/11 12:58 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:
Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties,

You must have pulled this statistic out of your ass because 60 percent of the population voted for parties other then conservatives.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/resu lts.html

Also older people vote more then younger people do and vote more Conservative , this is just a undeniable fact.

No, you're just having a hard time reading.

How can 60% of the population have voted for parties other than the conservatives if only 50-60% of the population showed up to vote?

At 5/3/11 12:58 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:

At 5/2/11 11:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: so with 39% popular vote AMONGST PEOPLE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE. he gets 100% of the power against the will of 61% of the population who have ideals that are completely opposite to his.

Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties, and as a clarification a vote that wasn't for the conservatives wasn't nessecarrily a vote against them. Remember, an election isn't a yes/no issue.

nope: 39% voted Conservative, 30% voted NDP, the rest voted libs greens indies and bloc

Why we voted no to that proportional voting system i will never know. But at least the executives of banks and oil companies can continue to wipe their asses with money while we pay an arm and a leg for their services and yet, struggle to find jobs. All the while we enjoy a huge rate increase for our internet.

What we have right now is essentially a proportional system, just not as strict as some people would like. If you've noticed, areas that are populationaly dense have more MP's than other areas. Unless I've mistaken what you think a proportional system is.

Regional proportional =/= proportional. my vote got thrown away because the liberals and NDP were split in my riding while the Conservatives got the entire right wing vote (a wopping 34%!!!). Had this been a proportional system My vote would still matter.

The internet rate increase was overturned by the government. The CRTC != the government, ok? They just have the final say in all their rulings.

usage based billing is not opposed by the Conservatives.

At 5/3/11 04:38 PM, ScytheCutter wrote: No, you're just having a hard time reading.

How can 60% of the population have voted for parties other than the conservatives if only 50-60% of the population showed up to vote?

by the logic of only 30% voting against him in the big picture: even less people voted conservative yet. It actually makes the picture a lot sadder to look at

Now we'll see what the Conservative/Reform Party will do with a majority gov.
They say they will scrap the gun control act.
Save us tens of millions of dollars a year...if they do, what will they replace it with ? They have never ever addressed that in any speach or article I've ever seen.

I don't know about the rest of you, but that system is broken & never did work. Hopefully they will go with a system where you still need security checks etc.
Or we're going to turn into the wild west...which is fun to watch on TV....but it is a political election promise...probably won't change much at all.

At 5/3/11 04:41 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:58 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:

At 5/2/11 11:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: so with 39% popular vote AMONGST PEOPLE WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE. he gets 100% of the power against the will of 61% of the population who have ideals that are completely opposite to his.

Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties, and as a clarification a vote that wasn't for the conservatives wasn't nessecarrily a vote against them. Remember, an election isn't a yes/no issue.

nope: 39% voted Conservative, 30% voted NDP, the rest voted libs greens indies and bloc

Yes, of the people that turned out. I was arguing semantics.

Regional proportional =/= proportional. my vote got thrown away because the liberals and NDP were split in my riding while the Conservatives got the entire right wing vote (a wopping 34%!!!). Had this been a proportional system My vote would still matter.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how changing the way it's tallied by riding would change the outcome of the riding.

The internet rate increase was overturned by the government. The CRTC != the government, ok? They just have the final say in all their rulings.

usage based billing is not opposed by the Conservatives.

Yet, under pressure from those they represent, forced the CRTC to overturn the decision. I may end up eating my words later, but I doubt that a majority would embolden the goverment to attempt something the people they represent have decried as unacceptable.

At 5/3/11 05:05 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 5/3/11 04:38 PM, ScytheCutter wrote: No, you're just having a hard time reading.

How can 60% of the population have voted for parties other than the conservatives if only 50-60% of the population showed up to vote?

by the logic of only 30% voting against him in the big picture: even less people voted conservative yet. It actually makes the picture a lot sadder to look at

Yes, it's terrible that people are so disinterested in the way their country is run. The largest net by any one organization in the election was the Conservative party, factually, many of the past governments have had a similar collection of the popular vote (Chretien in recent memory) and no one has complained that the system is unfavourable.

Sure, reform is needed, but to sound the horn for it after a lose reeks.
When the NDP, liberals (lolgreen) become the majority, I challenge them to reform the system that brought them to power.

Conservatives got majority! Can't believe that crap.

At 5/3/11 10:16 PM, camobch0 wrote: Conservatives got majority! Can't believe that crap.

I watched the coverage start to finish, and a great portion of their MPs won by small margins. Hopefully the progressives show this man who is really in charge and not let him push the Reformist agenda that would have never have been able to happen without PC lead coalition.

At 5/3/11 03:23 PM, fatape wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:58 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:
Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties,

You must have pulled this statistic out of your ass because 60 percent of the population voted for parties other then conservatives.

60% of people who voted, voted for parties other than the conservatives, but only 50% of Canadians voted, so therefore only 30% of all Canadians voted for aprties other than the Conservatives. In times where there is much turmoil and people are dis-satisfied with the government, voter rates in Canada and all other democracies increase. The less people voting means the people are satisfied witht he government and want a status quo.

At 5/13/11 03:44 AM, JoS wrote:

At 5/3/11 03:23 PM, fatape wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:58 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:
Wrong, only 30% of the population chose other parties,

You must have pulled this statistic out of your ass because 60 percent of the population voted for parties other then conservatives.

60% of people who voted, voted for parties other than the conservatives, but only 50% of Canadians voted, so therefore only 30% of all Canadians voted for aprties other than the Conservatives. In times where there is much turmoil and people are dis-satisfied with the government, voter rates in Canada and all other democracies increase. The less people voting means the people are satisfied witht he government and want a status quo.

or, they are lazy, or they think protest voting matters when you don't even show up to the polling station to state why you aren't voting.

Or once again, they are just lazy. I should found the Apathy party.

Platform: abstain to everything no matter what. I would have potentially 50% of Canadians on my side...

Note to anyone who wants to reply to this: I address some of the things I say later on in the same post, so don't do the standard reply paragraph-by-paragraph thing. Just respond to the post as a whole.

At 5/3/11 06:04 PM, ScytheCutter wrote: I'm sorry, but I fail to see how changing the way it's tallied by riding would change the outcome of the riding.

Proportional representation (at least how it's been brought up recently in Canada) means that seats are lumped into a single group, then divvied out based on the proportions of votes.

i.e. if there were twenty seats, and you had a voter breakdown like:

55% Party A
25% Party B
15% Party C
5% Party D

You'd have 11 seats for Party A, 5 seats for B, 3 seats for C, and 1 seat for D.

In the system we have now, party A could theoretically win 100% of the seats (depending on breakdown by riding) and parties C and D would be unlikely to receive any seats at all.

In other words, the entire country would be like one giant riding, with seats divided by proportion of vote. The system that went to referendum a while ago was actually a hybrid of proportional and first-past-the-post, but it got voted down, in no small part due to the fact that the "no" side had a much more organized campaign and convinced a lot of people that proportional representation destroys government efficacy.

Voting by regions in a system that is not comprised of independent candidates has been outdated for a long time, and was really only practical when it was difficult to transfer information quickly. It could be argued that removing ridings from the picture would give less attention to local issues, but having ridings basically eliminates many people's ability to vote for someone who really represents their views on federal issues.

Furthermore, people still elect a local government, and it's their job to interface with the province and the capital.

At 5/2/11 09:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The girlfriend & I are off to vote in about a half hour.
We've decided to vote NDP
Not because we're big fans, but for the fact it is the only party that has a chance to beat the Conservative incumbant in our riding.

It sucks when the only choice you have isn't a choice at all !

I've got two words for that, hold it right there...

At 5/13/11 04:38 PM, Elfer wrote: Note to anyone who wants to reply to this: I address some of the things I say later on in the same post, so don't do the standard reply paragraph-by-paragraph thing. Just respond to the post as a whole.

Proportional elections.

Why not just shoot straight for...

*wait for it*

... PREFERENTIAL elections?

Cast several votes at one time in descending preference, ensuring that if your favourite candidate doesn't really stand a chance, you can still vote for that candidate but put auxilliary candidates (that you at least don't despise) with a better chance further down on the preference list. That way, you get an opportunity to at the very least block your least favourite candidates from scoring a major victory.

Check it out, it's pretty sweet stuff.

At 5/1/11 10:19 PM, Steveurkel wrote: I say Conservative is the best. I voted for them in the fake election at school because they rock. I used to like NDP, but I find that they're too weak to control the country.

the countries to polite to rebel dude, or a good amount of you are weak willed, ha I live in the U.S.A so I don't really care much about this!

At 5/13/11 06:44 PM, zephiran wrote:

At 5/2/11 09:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: It sucks when the only choice you have isn't a choice at all !

I've got two words for that, hold it right there...

;;;;
Actually I've had an answer for it for years.
Have a voting box at the bottom of the ballot, that says,
[ ] NONE OF THE ABOVE

So if enough voters, vote none of the above as the majority of votes for that district/riding. Everyone on the ballot gets flung & can never run again.
They then have to run a different batch of candidates.
Even if all those who vote none of the above, do not get to be the 'winners' . Everyone will know when the votes are counted just how many peole think they ALL SUCKED .

At 5/13/11 06:44 PM, zephiran wrote: Why not just shoot straight for...

*wait for it*

... PREFERENTIAL elections?

Cast several votes at one time in descending preference, ensuring that if your favourite candidate doesn't really stand a chance, you can still vote for that candidate but put auxilliary candidates (that you at least don't despise) with a better chance further down on the preference list. That way, you get an opportunity to at the very least block your least favourite candidates from scoring a major victory.

Check it out, it's pretty sweet stuff.

Well, the issue with that is that preferential ballots only work when you're electing one person (sort of). When you're electing 200 peopel to the federal government, like we do here in Canada, it doesn't make much sense to divvy up the country into jurisdictions the way we do now. In other words, preferential voting is good, but it doesn't really solve the issue of proportional representation.

However, the single transferable vote system (used in Australia) is basically a mash-up of preferential voting and proportional representation, which is pretty badass. The problem with this system, of course, is that the campaign against would take advantage of the fact that people who don't have an intuitive grasp of math would find it hard to understand the mechanism behind the system.

At 5/15/11 09:18 AM, Elfer wrote:

Well, the issue with that is that preferential ballots only work when you're electing one person (sort of). When you're electing 200 peopel to the federal government, like we do here in Canada, it doesn't make much sense to divvy up the country into jurisdictions the way we do now. In other words, preferential voting is good, but it doesn't really solve the issue of proportional representation.

True, you would have to give the system a bit of a structural rearrangement to assure proportionality. I take it Canadas parliamentary election is divided up into several small one-man election districts with a single round first past the post system? Yeah, a preferential approach wouldn't necessarily change dickballs there, so you'd have to mash these districts together to make them bigger and allow for more than one candidate to be elected from each one to really nail that diversity and proportionality aspect.

Basically, you'd have to implement... A whole new district and system composition of, well, Proportional Representation.

Shit leads to lots of fun parties yo.

Also. For those of you who wonder what the fuck is up with one-dude election districts, check up on
Duverger's Law.

However, the single transferable vote system (used in Australia) is basically a mash-up of preferential voting and proportional representation, which is pretty badass. The problem with this system, of course, is that the campaign against would take advantage of the fact that people who don't have an intuitive grasp of math would find it hard to understand the mechanism behind the system.

Mufufufufufufufufufufu...

Screw the mathematically inept, what positive contributions could they ever make to a modern democratic society?

>:D

The Physicists and Mathematicians shalt all of Earth inheriteth.

Oh, and by the way. The UK had a referendum about the related Alternative Vote system some time ago. This dudester made an effort to explain it to the aforementioned inept masses. The AV system did not pass the referendum by a pretty conclusive victory for the "NOPE" side.

Shit if I care though, I think he did a good job and since we started sort of talking about electoral systems (which I conveniently happen to be taking a course in w00t), I thought it would be relevant and perhaps marginally interesting to some of you.

At 4/21/11 11:40 PM, h1 wrote: Steven Harper rules ;)

You sad, sad little man.
Anyway, I voted NDP, but Liberal would've been my second choice, so I guess it all worked out fair enough in the end for me.