theweaselking: (Default)
[personal profile] theweaselking
Honestly, the best possible result at this point is a CPC(non communist) minority opposed by an NDP/Lib coalition, NDP/Lib/BQ at worst.

And, really, I'm actually hoping for the NDP to pass the Liberals in second place, giving us Prime Minister Jack Layton. Yes, yes, I've already made the Pravda endorses Trotsky joke, although me and the NDP is more "Macleans endorses Ignatieff". (Which they did.)

I'm still voting Liberal for one critically important reason that I'll get to in a moment, but, hell, while an NDP majority would be disastrous, that simply isn't going to happen - and an NDP MINORITY means their worst excesses get checked by the Bloc and the Libs, their sensible policies are in line with the Bloc and the Libs and in a couple of technologically-related cases are both better AND close enough for the Bloc and Libs to let past... and the CPC(non-communist) get to sit the fuck out and let their American-style religious insanity not fuck anything up further for a while.

For bonus points, losing the Government means Harper loses the party, and his base are already angry at how left-wing and wimpy and Obama-like he is. They want a real classic Ron Paul/David Duke replacement, and will insist both on that AND a lifting of Harper's muzzle so they stop having to hide the True Blue attitude.
Losing *to the NDP* means Ignatieff is out on his ass and hopefully he finds a nice cozy place far the fuck away from Canada to cool his heels and cheerlead for torturers, like he was doing BEFORE his current election fever. That sadly leaves Rae as heir apparent, which may mean the Libs need to tank another election or two before someone turfs HIM and puts someone in who isn't a complete economic illiterate whose sole official track record involves directly and personally destroying the economy of the largest Province.

But I'm still voting Liberal, because in Canada, even now, there are exactly two and only two parties. WHICH two parties they are varies by voter, but there are still only two: The party who takes the riding, and the party who WOULD have taken the riding if people who don't understand how vote counting works were smarter. And where I live, that means choosing between the Liberal and the CPC(non-communist) candidates[1], which means I and all non-stupid people who live here SHOULD vote Liberal.[2]

Determining who to vote for in Canada is really simple: If the top two involves the CPC(non-communist), you vote for the other candidate NO MATTER WHAT. If they're not in the top two, then you vote against the BQ next, then the NDP[4], then the Liberals[4] - and if someone is neither CPC nor BQ or NDP or Liberal and is in the top two? Fuck YES you vote for that person unless they're completely Teabagger.

At no time do you EVER vote third-party. That's fucking stupid. That's the same as "not voting" with a side order of DERP A HURR DERP. As an added bonus, due to having never been in power ever the NDP are big supporters of fixing the system so that "only ever vote for the least stupid of the top two" is no longer the only workable option.


[1]: For bonus points: The NDP candidate for my riding is a no-show. No-showed the debates, no-showed the community meetings, her rep told the press that she's not going to be doing any of that. And she's still polling at 16%, for some stupid reason. Not that her 16%, or even the Green's 6%, would make the Lib win here.
[2]: Given my druthers, I would vote for the Green party candidate in my riding. Not because I like the Greens, but because I know him personally. I used to work with him, and he's a very smart guy and would make a great MP if he was running for a party that mattered in a riding where a vote for him wasn't a vote for Brigadier General Fuckwit McHateFuture[3]. As a bonus, he's the kind of guy who is both willing AND able to tell the Green Party to fuck off when they're saying something stupid, and as their only MP they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about him. But he can't win.
[3]: The CPC(non-communist) candidate.[5]
[4]: Consideration on this ordering, for the current election, is debatable. Since the NDP having more seats than the Liberals produces one of the very best possible side effects ever seen in Canadian politics, and voting NDP in an NDP/Lib riding doesn't give a seat to the CPC(non-communist), voters in such ridings should consider their candidates carefully and potentially violate this rule of elections, this time.
[5]: Who is going to win, because my neighbours are idiots. I have trained my dog to pee only on the blue signs, though[6]. It makes me feel better.
[6]: No, really. I actually have done this. Every time I leave my house with her, we cross the street and she pees on the Re-Elect McHateFuture sign. And I praise her and give her cookies.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 12:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cuddlycthulhu.livejournal.com
Much luck, I hope whatever comes next for your country's government is a sight better than it was.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 12:43 am (UTC)
fearmeforiampink: (Dude?)
From: [personal profile] fearmeforiampink
This all reminds me of a question that came up at work recently.

Why isn't/hasn't First Past the Post pushing/pushed Canada towards a two party system as it tends to do? Is it that there was a two party system, but people slowly (or quickly) got pissed of enough and/or just changed their opinions despite the push of the system? Or is it the particular voting patterns of the different types of people in Canada? Or something else entirely different?

The first is approximately the reason why the UK has been moving towards multi-party politics, though that may be reduced if both the lib thems get wiped out at the next general election, and we don't get the votes to change to AV (said votes that'll be all in within a hundred and twenty hours, oh gods...)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 12:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
It *was* a two-party system, for most of history.

The catch is, the Liberals wer popular. Massively popular. SUPREMELY POPULAR.

Then the NDP formed, and split the vote, leaving the Liberals.... still comfortably in charge. For years. And then the BQ arrived, and they're a spoiler because they're a regional party. They get major-party numbers in their region and *zero* outside it. And the Reform Party started because white-supremacist hicks weren't getting enough traction with the PC party so they took their ball and went home, resulting in the complete collapse of both Reform AND PC parties.

So, Liberals still in charge.

And the Liberals, as they do, fucked things up again, and the time came for the PC party to take over for a few years, as they do.... except now the PCs were gone and the sane-person base had been split in three. So the CRAP (no, really, that was their name) would up getting barely into power because they had their white supremacist base, the former PCs "red tory" base re-defecting from the Liberals, and the BQ and NDP siphoning votes on the other side. And there they've stayed, because in 5 years the Liberals haven't suffered enough and/or have been fucking idiots (Ignatieff*coughcough*) and the rest haven't stepped up to do anything useful.

Which is to say: FPTP leads inevitably to a two-party system. We had that, they we had a rare splitting case that allowed third parties to briefly spawn, and we're currently in a delicate stage where ewither the third parties will tank their own sides back into their own nonexistence again, or briefly attain enough power to eliminate FPTP. The current situation is, essentially, Hawking Radiation from the black hole of FPTP, and it's unstable, but it hasn't collapsed yet.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 01:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kafziel.livejournal.com
FPTP doesn't lead inevitably to a two-party system. It leads inevitably to at most a two-party system - it sounds like you're on the way to developing a one-party system and it's only coalitioning that is staving that off.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 01:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Uh, no. The Conservatives *cap out* at 30% support, and that's after pulling in a whole pile of Liberals disgusted at Paul Martin.

Coalitions: Well, those are how a parliament is SUPPOSED TO WORK.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 03:56 am (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
one of the significant differences that I can see being very interested but only doing amateur research is that Canadian parties are for that level only, so the Federal parties and the Provincial parties are different entities, although they are linked.

Think if instead of, say, the Lib Dems running candidates for the EU elections, they were ALDR, and the Tories were split between EPP-ED and whatever their new not-racist-honest-ok-except-the-Pole-we-put-in-charge group and there were candidates for both.

And local elections had different parties again. It doesn't apply across the board, but when the old Tory party was wiped out (best election result ever, still, in every election I've ever studied), their regional equivalents did well in some provinces on the same day.

FPTP both encourages a two party system in each individual district and creates a "wholely false picture of the balance of power between the parties" when there's any sort of realignment going on. So it's virtually always a two party system, but it'll be different parties in each district.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 01:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
when the old Tory party was wiped out (best election result ever, still, in every election I've ever studied),

No way, because the PCs were reasonably sane, and their crazier supporters didn't stop voting or grow up - they just started voting Refooooorm instead. And the Refooooorm party basically learned that they could get away with using The Southern Strategy.

It would be like the Tories collapsing because all their votes and, one election later, all their seats, went to the BNP instead.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 04:05 am (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
Two exceptions to this rule.

1) the outgoing MP (or whatever you guys call them) isn't running for reelection and only held the seat on personal vote, despite local collapse in party organisation and support on a massive scale

2) the result is a foregone conclusion because it's a safe safe seat for someone.

TBH, in your situation, I'd vote for the candidate I most liked, as the arsehole's going to win and it'll make no difference, but your logiv for the other vote is sound.

Last year, our sitting MP stood down, and if she'd run again she'd have had my vote (Labour MP who voted against the war, against the torture, for investigations and against all the ID cards and useless IT policies, plus drinks in a few local biker bars). Her party selected Tony Blair's step-mother-in-law (seriously, no joke), who ran on a "Tony did nothing wrong and the war was a Good Thing" platform, as well as being completely useless and alienating half her activist base, some of whom switched to us.

In the meantime, we'd wiped them out in local Govt and supplanted them. On the day, we tied with the Tories in the local votes, but tactical voting kicked in horribly and we tied with Labour in distant joint 2nd for the national votes, a chunk of our support hated the Labour candidate so much they voted Tory tactically to keep her out.

We don't have district by district polling that's trusted here, so I couldn't prove we could win to anyone, not even my own party.

If there's a chance your preferred party could leapfrog, take it. I was actually fairly sure the Tory would win regardless, I was right, so both my caveats applied at once.

But yeah, crapy voting system is crappy.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 01:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
We *do* have reasonably good per-riding polling, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you don't campaign your ass off to get your preferred party into the top two - but come election day, there is a top two and your vote either goes for one of them or it is completely wasted.

My preferred candidate: Yeah, no, I don't vote for fake parties. And I don't DISLIKE the Lib candidate - she's reasonably sensible, answered my questions, and when she didn't know what I was talking about, said so, asked where she could learn more... and then called me back showing evidence of having read it.

My point is, if the NDP had leapfrogged the Liberals in my riding, I would have voted for them and not even felt too bad about it this time - but I'm never voting for a no-show candidate. So the Liberals as still in the lead, and I hate the incumbent and plan to teach my dog to piss on his grave instead of his re-election signs when the time comes, so they get my vote.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 06:12 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
Fair enough, and with local polling you can make that choice on polling day.

Our polling companies say it's "almost impossible" to do it on a per seat basis, even for by elections, and those that have tried get terrible results.

Given in some cases it's the same companies as you have, I smell a rat, I suspect it's more lack of local enough media to pay for it.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-02 02:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ice-hesitant.livejournal.com
Note that Chretien instituted a per-vote subsidy to parties that got more than 4% of the vote. Harper's been trying to kill that. This is one of the reasons why it's worth it voting for a third party.

The Dion coalition formed because Harper tried to kill this subsidy, and killing this subsidy is in his platform for this election. However, Harper has no intention whatsoever of killing the other subsidy for parties, the tax deductible campaign contribution one. This reflects where the Con money comes from versus all the other parties.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-02 02:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Last I checked, the bonus money per vote was about $2.

Why not just vote for someone who might win, and *donate* that, or twice that, or ten times that, directly to the party?

(Yes, because not everyone will do that and if they get less than 4% they don't get the money from the people who don't donate the way you will. But still!)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 08:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] divinevirus.livejournal.com
I live in a riding that voted 60 percent CPC in the past previous election (which was actually an increase from the previous three elections, where it sat around 55%). Anything I do is going to be a waste of a vote, but I might as well waste it on the Green Party, since I know both the local candidate and Elizabeth May (she was a friend of my grandfather).

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-01 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I think you're local to me! Carleton-Mississippi Mills, right?

Still, the closer we can push the race, the more likely people are to field serious candidates. Voting for Hogg isn't going to do ANYTHING good, no matter how much I personally like the guy.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-02 07:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cosmiccat.livejournal.com
The path ahead is going to be kind of rough, though. If the Conservatives' throne speech gets shot down and someone else tries to form a government, I don't know what Harper will do. I doubt he will accept defeat gracefully. It will get really, really ugly.

Even if the other parties manage to put together and pass a bill regarding instituting runoff voting, the Conservatives control the Senate - and they know just as well as we do that runoff voting would be the end of neo-conservatism in Canada. They will kill that bill, possibly within moments of it entering the upper chamber.

There's a slim chance for something good to happen, but it's far more likely that the Conservatives will continue to hang around Canada's neck like a millstone, whether they are in power or not.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-03 01:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wiseacre.livejournal.com
I disagree that one must always vote for the top-polling non-CPC(douchebag)party. In a previous election, I lived in a riding where the Liberal MP who is a staunch anti-abortionist and has consistently voted against same sex marriage. Hated the CPC(douchebag), but there was no way I was going to vote for that fucker. He still won.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-03 01:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
One douchebag Liberal MP is better than one douchebag CPC MP, because the Liberal will be constrained to vote in non-douchebag ways at least SOME of the time.

But I can understand finding a 1/308 exception to my rules. In that situation, I'd be mailing the party to explain why their candidate was unacceptable and why you could never vote for them. Postal mail? Counts for *huge*.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-03 02:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wiseacre.livejournal.com
It's not 1/308. There are at least 35 I can think of off the top of my head that I would never vote for. The 32 who voted against c-38, Andre Forbes, Iggy, and Bob Rae.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-03 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I suspect they would not all be running in your riding at once.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-05-03 05:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wiseacre.livejournal.com
True but irrelevant. It shows your rule does not apply 307/308ts amount of the time. There were at least 35/308 times that one should not vote Liberal even if it means a CPC(douchebag) win. There may have been more of which I am unaware.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2025 03:11 pm