I had the exact same first reaction. And then I realized that he'd consumed nearly as many preservative drugs as Keith Richards and also seems to be following that low-calorie live-until-you're-120 diet that people in some part of Russia do, so knew it was about someone else.
Is it good that he is gone? Speaking as someone who has always voted Liberal, it's not like Iggy had any choice. I can't say I liked him, but I certainly didn't hate him, especially when I compare him to ex Liberal party leaders like Paul Martin and John Turner.
Another election, another Liberal leader on the trash heap. Who's next for the firing line? Ignatieff said he'd like to see a woman in charge; are there even any left?
This is like the whole "Four years of Republican governance is just what the Democrats deserve, maybe then they'll get their act together" thing, isn't it.
Of course, we said that about the minority governments too. But arugably they didn't get anything done because of all the pissing and moaning, so the Cons didn't get a chance to offend everyone and bankrupt the nation. Yet.
And they'll be making up for lost time, so I suspect they'll be running RAMPANT.
It's not really a *good* thing, because we'll be in a shambles afterward.
The problem is that I made exactly that prediction seven years ago; at the time I called the Con minority government "just enough rope to hang themselves."
And hang themselves they did, almost less than a week later. And they've gone on shooting themselves in the feet and picking weird hills to die on and NOBODY CARES. They got a majority! They have already screwed things up so badly and... nothing. Not a whisper of discontent.
My only explanation at this point is that we are a nation of incredibly fucking stupid people.
Or nobody liked Canada in the first place, so why save it?
Well, let's be clear here: 60.4% of Canadians said they wanted someone else to be running the government. However, because of the Canadian FPTP system, that means nothing.
Well that's a bit misleading, by the same math the Liberals and NDP were supported by only 30.4% of Canadian voters, which isn't much of a commanding majority either. In fact, if we go by "percentage of all Canadians", the number drops to 21.2%.
There's plenty of substantive arguments we can make against Harper, playing funny games with the math isn't really necessary.
36%, actually, wanted the Liberals or the NDP in charge. 40% of Canadians said "a pox on both your houses" or "I can't decide" or "I can't be bothered" or "Ima LEMONN!"
My back-of-the-envelope math based on the numbers from Elections Canada is giving me 30.4% (7 291 649 votes out of 23 971 740 registered electors).
Anyway my point is that making Harper's numbers look tinier by playing with the math cuts both ways and distracts from the essential argument: that FPTP gives us the appearance of majority agreement where there is none.
I'm not keen on mandatory voting or proportional representation, but I am all over runoff voting.
PS: I am in favour of mandatory voting, and having "none of the above" being an option on the ballot. I don't really have a good answer for what should happen when "None Of The Above" wins, but dammit, it should do SOMETHING.
Yeah, but that's actually smaller than the % of Canadians who voted against him last time. More people voted for him this time than voter for him last time - meaning years of incompetence, neglect, and outright criminal activity convinced them to vote FOR the Conservatives instead of AGAINST.
At this point I just throw my arms up in the air and start looking at moving to a remote island somewhere.
That's the kind of arrogance that led them to a crushing defeat. All the NDP need do is not put its eye out and they could well win a government next time 'round.
God, I hope the Libs make Rae leader. That will kill the party.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-04 01:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 07:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 10:44 pm (UTC)That says it all, really.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 10:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 11:04 pm (UTC)It's arrogant, but it's true.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 11:19 pm (UTC)And they'll be making up for lost time, so I suspect they'll be running RAMPANT.
It's not really a *good* thing, because we'll be in a shambles afterward.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-03 11:21 pm (UTC)And hang themselves they did, almost less than a week later. And they've gone on shooting themselves in the feet and picking weird hills to die on and NOBODY CARES. They got a majority! They have already screwed things up so badly and... nothing. Not a whisper of discontent.
My only explanation at this point is that we are a nation of incredibly fucking stupid people.
Or nobody liked Canada in the first place, so why save it?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 12:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 01:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 04:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 04:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 04:52 pm (UTC)There's plenty of substantive arguments we can make against Harper, playing funny games with the math isn't really necessary.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 04:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 05:13 pm (UTC)Anyway my point is that making Harper's numbers look tinier by playing with the math cuts both ways and distracts from the essential argument: that FPTP gives us the appearance of majority agreement where there is none.
I'm not keen on mandatory voting or proportional representation, but I am all over runoff voting.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 05:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-05 04:36 pm (UTC)At this point I just throw my arms up in the air and start looking at moving to a remote island somewhere.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-04 02:01 am (UTC)God, I hope the Libs make Rae leader. That will kill the party.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-04 11:26 pm (UTC)