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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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)