Canadian Politics: Help, I'm new

[Victor Galis]

So, I've moved back to Canada after 14 years, and I've really not been keeping up with the politics. Can someone tell me about the parties and what's going on?

(Though I suppose basing my views off those of other Apolytoners is liable to leave me with... interesting outlookts on things )

[notyoueither]

Last election saw the Liberals lose their minority government to the Conservatives who now have their own minority. It took a lot for them to lose, and even then major metro areas (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) largely stuck with them. Read up on Gomry.

The Conservatives are trying to show everyone (like the inhabitants of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver) that they are a respectable party that is fit to govern. They made a breakthrough in rural Quebec that nobody saw coming (read up on Gomry) but they may not be able to keep those gains.

The Liberals are in the midst of replacing Paul Martin. It is up in the air how they will do the next time out (read up on Gomry).

The NDP are still wandering the wilderness, but it may be getting worse. The unions are withdrawing support. They remain as likely to ever form a government as it is that 50 states would apply to join Confederation.

The BQ are making major hay in Quebec at the expense of Liberal and later Conserrvative support (read up on Gomry).

The new kids on the block are the Greens. Their first leader was fairly conservative, and they have polled well for a party that is coming out of nowhere and isn't allowed into the major debates (no seats). If they can keep it reasonable they stand a very good chance of displacing the NDP as the third party in the forseeable future (if the NDP continue to melt down).

[KrazyHorse]

I'm actually considering withdrawing my support for the NDP based on their Afghanistan stance.



What the hell is a pro-war socialist supposed to do these days?

[Victor Galis]

How substantially different are Green and NDP positions?

(It looks like the liberals were elected in the riding I live in.)

Oh... and I hate the BQ on general principle, but that much hasn't changed in 14 years.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

KH, why would you consider the NDP to be socialist? They're only ever so slightly left of centre...

NYE: I was going to suggest he read up on Gomery instead.

VG: The Greens and NDP are completely different. The GPC have received alot of direction from former Tories and embrace environmental issues from the perspective of fiscal conservatism. The NDP, on the other hand, have no direction and are almost as unprincipled as the Liberals.

[RGBVideo]

two-party system, so don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't have a chance to win a seat.

[Victor Galis]

Eh... if I didn't want to waste my vote, well... ummm... the Liberals got 45% here, and the next highest party got 17%. By your argument I should always vote Liberal as no one else has any chance based on those results.

Edit: Could someone please expand on the nature of the Greens as this seems to be somewhat different from most Green parties elsewhere.

Also how strongly do the various parties oppose Quebec independence?

[RGBVideo]

Eh... if I didn't want to waste my vote, well... ummm... the Liberals got 45% here, and the next highest party got 17%. By your argument I should always vote Liberal as no one else has any chance based on those results.

no

stop pretending to be a jackass, we both know I was talking about tactical voting

[notyoueither]

When the old Conservatives were being merged with Reform/Canadian Alliance to become the new Conservative Party, some old Tories turned to the Greens as they didn't want anything to do with some of the more extreme positions of Reform/CA.

As the Conservatives prove themselves, many of those old Tories will drift back to them and the Greens may drift left. You can see it happening already as the new leader of the Greens was chosen on a program of getting out of NAFTA, likening economic growth to cancer, etc.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by VJ

no

stop pretending to be a jackass, we both know I was talking about tactical voting

Eh? No seriously, given these results:

Lucienne Robillard LIB 18884 45.68% X
Louise O'Sullivan CON 7295 17.65%
Eric Wilson Steedman NDP 6356 15.37%
Sophie Fréchette BQ 5191 12.56%
Julie Sabourin GRN 3451 8.35%
Serge Lachapelle ML 94 0.23%
Bill Sloan COM 69 0.17%

How could you refer to this as a 2-party system? I assume that my vote only counts in the riding in which I vote, right? I can vote for the candidate I like best, and know that it won't affect the outcome. In a way it's liberating, in another way .

[notyoueither]

It will also lead to funding for the party that you voted for. The 'wasted vote' argument is losing force.

[RGBVideo]

How could you refer to this as a 2-party system?

Great job being an arrogant jackass and not reading the link which defined "two-party system". The winner-takes-all system means that opposition parties should unify if they ever want to gain any power. Well, unless it wants to lose by splitting it's votes. 46% is still <50%, so theoretically Robillard could be defeated if all who didn't vote for her would vote against her and vote for an unified candidate running against her. Of course, this being Montreal, the voters are probably too stupid to realize this

I assume that my vote only counts in the riding in which I vote, right?

yes

I can vote for the candidate I like best

yes

edit:

The 'wasted vote' argument is losing force.

Ahh, whatever. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. Americans voting for Nader in 2000

[notyoueither]

What exactly do you know about our political system and what effects having a multi-party FPTP system are producing?

If all you've got are allusions to a presidential race in the US, I would say that there is an arrogant jackass in this thread, but it isn't VG.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by VJ

Great job being an arrogant jackass and not reading the link which defined "two-party system". The winner-takes-all system means that opposition parties should unify if they ever want to gain any power. Well, unless it wants to lose by splitting it's votes. 46% is still <50%, so theoretically Robillard could be defeated if all who didn't vote for her would vote against her and vote for an unified candidate running against her. Of course, this being Montreal, the voters are probably too stupid to realize this

How do you unify the BQ-NDP-Green-Conservative vote? If the winning candidate holds a plurality in the centre, it makes no sense to unite the opposition... I mean it's likely that people within those opposition parties would prefer the Liberal candidate over the alternative opposition choices. I certainly would never vote for anyone that the BQ would endorse.


Ooh... and I see now that parties get $1.75 per vote cast for them (am I reading this right?). This certainly goes a long way to make votes useful even if your candidate can't win. In this case districts like this are great because third parties should be able to get all the voters who want to vote for them but in a different district wouldn't for fear of electing a conservative.

I'm still no closer to picking a party though

[notyoueither]

You're reading correctly. Any party that polls enough will get support from the federal taxpayer.

The Greens won a significant victory last time out, even though they won no seats. I would expect them to parlay $1 million a year of funding into seats in coming elections.