Canada's opposition leader (Conservative Andrew Scheer) embroiled in Pizzagate nonsense, because of course he is.

[CitizenVectron]

 

We all know that Trudeau looks to have interfered in the judicial process over the prosecution of a Canadian firm accused of bribery in Libya, and it has hurt his numbers (now tied with Conservatives, or slightly below).

 

But this week Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was asked a question about child trafficking/Pizzagate/Clinton, and how Trudeau might be involved...and actually answered the question without refuting anything. He claims not to have heard the question correctly, even though he answered the main thrust about Trudeau donating $600 million to the Clinton foundation (which is not true, it is $50 million and it was a commitment made by the previous Conservative government).

 

So in the past week Scheer's personal numbers have dropped even further than Trudeau's in terms of preferred PM.

 

Also if you notice, the Green Party had a chance of becoming the third major party, which is awesome. They have a great leader in Canada, who is one of the best parliamentarians.

[SaysWho?]

This happens in Canada?

 

RIP Canada

 

 

In all seriousness, I guess this potentially helps Trudeau considering the competitiveness, though I don't know how reliable polling is in Canada since you have more candidates there who can actually get a higher proportion of the vote, and polling works best with two people currently. It's weird that he's being asked about Hillary.

 

Also, I had to do a double-take on the 2015 election before I briefly forgot that red = liberal in most countries.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Yeah polling here is much tougher. We legitimately have dozens of ridings where there are three competitive parties...sometimes four! 

[AbsolutSurgen]

57 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

This happens in Canada?

 

RIP Canada

 

 

In all seriousness, I guess this potentially helps Trudeau considering the competitiveness, though I don't know how reliable polling is in Canada since you have more candidates there who can actually get a higher proportion of the vote, and polling works best with two people currently. It's weird that he's being asked about Hillary.

 

Also, I had to do a double-take on the 2015 election before I briefly forgot that red = liberal in most countries.

 

Polling numbers don't directly tie to seats in a parliamentary system.  In Canada, (for national parties) having 11-12% of the popular vote can result in 3-4% of the seats.

 

A resurgent Green Party (which has a very different platform to the party of the same name in the U.S.) may actually increase the majority in parliament of whichever of the main two parties gets the most votes.

 

That said, Canadian elections can see vast swings in popular vote during a very short time during an election cycle -- and many Canadians switch their votes from smaller parties to larger ones during the election because "their first choice can't win".

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Polling numbers don't directly tie to seats in a parliamentary system.  In Canada, (for national parties) having 11-12% of the popular vote can result in 3-4% of the seats.

 

A resurgent Green Party (which has a very different platform to the party of the same name in the U.S.) may actually increase the majority in parliament of whichever of the main two parties gets the most votes.

 

That said, Canadian elections can see vast swings in popular vote during a very short time during an election cycle -- and many Canadians switch their votes from smaller parties to larger ones during the election because "their first choice can't win".

 

I appreciate that, but I know how the parliamentary system works.  I'm just saying that, in modern Canadian politics, more votes = more seats than the other parties, which is why those who received the highest percentage won the election with different margins (from landslides to pluralities).

[CitizenVectron]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I appreciate that, but I know how the parliamentary system works.  I'm just saying that, in modern Canadian politics, more votes = more seats than the other parties, which is why those who received the highest percentage won the election with different margins (from landslides to pluralities).

 

More votes = more seats is generally true, yes. But Canada has parties that are regionally strong, but federally weak, and this affects polling. For example, in the 1993 election:

 

Liberals

41.24% vote - 177 seats (60%)

 

Bloc Quebecois

13.52% vote - 54 seats (18.3%)

 

Reform

18.69% vote - 52 seats (17.62%)

 

NDP

6.88% vote - 9 seats (3%)

 

The Bloc only ran candidates in a single province, but because of their huge popularity became the official opposition. This had the effect of reducing the impact of the federal vote in the rest of the country, in terms of how spread out the votes were for the three other major parties. Fortunately the Bloc is basically dead now, with Quebec having returned to the Liberals after two decades of flirting with separatism. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

More votes = more seats is generally true, yes. But Canada has parties that are regionally strong, but federally weak, and this affects polling. For example, in the 1993 election:

 

Liberals

41.24% vote - 177 seats (60%)

 

Bloc Quebecois

13.52% vote - 54 seats (18.3%)

 

Reform

18.69% vote - 52 seats (17.62%)

 

NDP

6.88% vote - 9 seats (3%)

 

The Bloc only ran candidates in a single province, but because of their huge popularity became the official opposition. This had the effect of reducing the impact of the federal vote in the rest of the country, in terms of how spread out the votes were for the three other major parties. Fortunately the Bloc is basically dead now, with Quebec having returned to the Liberals after two decades of flirting with separatism. 

Yes.  I haven't seen any analysis on what the Green Party's geographical distribution looks like -- if it is less concentrated than the NDP's, then it could result in fewer seats.

 

I wonder if the popular vote requirements for a majority have come down dramatically in this new paradigm?

[CitizenVectron]

3 hours ago, mikechorney said:

Yes.  I haven't seen any analysis on what the Green Party's geographical distribution looks like -- if it is less concentrated than the NDP's, then it could result in fewer seats.

 

I wonder if the popular vote requirements for a majority have come down dramatically in this new paradigm?

 

Typically if a party can get to 40% federally in Canada then it is guaranteed a majority. Here are the results of the last handful of majorities:

 

1984 - 50.03%    Conservative

1988 - 43.02%    Conservative

1993 - 41.24%    Liberal

1997 - 38.46%    Liberal

2000 - 40.85%    Liberal

2004 - 36.73%    (Minority Liberal)

2006 - 36.27%    (Minority Conservative)

2008 - 37.65%    (Minority Conservative)

2011 - 39.62%    Conservative

2015 - 39.47%    Liberal

 

So the winner is typically between 36% and 50%, with around 38%+ needed for majority. I doubt that this will be any different for the upcoming election. While the Greens may be higher than expected, the Bloc is also at record lows. And while the NDP may have soared to second place in 2011, they have fallen back down to their typical range (actually, lower than normal). My prediction is that many NDP voters will plant their votes with the Liberals to prevent a Conservative government since the NDP leader is not popular. The PPC (right-wing libertarian-type party) is also new this time around, but is typically only getting 2-4% in the polls. They could have a spoiler effect in some close races.

 

It's unfortunate that in Canada the right wing is basically united while the left is split between 2.5 parties (Liberals are left-of-centre on many issues, but are also corporatist on others).

 

[RedSoxFan9]

The specifics are wrong but pizzagate is real

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Typically if a party can get to 40% federally in Canada then it is guaranteed a majority. Here are the results of the last handful of majorities:

 

1984 - 50.03%    Conservative

1988 - 43.02%    Conservative

1993 - 41.24%    Liberal

1997 - 38.46%    Liberal

2000 - 40.85%    Liberal

2004 - 36.73%    (Minority Liberal)

2006 - 36.27%    (Minority Conservative)

2008 - 37.65%    (Minority Conservative)

2011 - 39.62%    Conservative

2015 - 39.47%    Liberal

 

So the winner is typically between 36% and 50%, with around 38%+ needed for majority. I doubt that this will be any different for the upcoming election. While the Greens may be higher than expected, the Bloc is also at record lows. And while the NDP may have soared to second place in 2011, they have fallen back down to their typical range (actually, lower than normal). My prediction is that many NDP voters will plant their votes with the Liberals to prevent a Conservative government since the NDP leader is not popular. The PPC (right-wing libertarian-type party) is also new this time around, but is typically only getting 2-4% in the polls. They could have a spoiler effect in some close races.n others).

 

I recognize history -- however, we haven't ever seen an election where two non-major national parties capture close to 30% of the vote.  This has the potential to lower that bar -- and potentially create a situation where popular vote has a less direct tie to the actual winning of seats.

 

3 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It's unfortunate that in Canada the right wing is basically united while the left is split between 2.5 parties (Liberals are left-of-centre on many issues, but are also corporatist on others).

 

 

I believe that is an unfair characterization of the situation in Canada.  The conservatives are certainly further right than the other Canadian parties, but that isn't saying much.  The actual policy decisions of the Liberals vs. the Conservatives aren't actually that much different.  Compared to other countries, there really isn't much to choose between the two major parties.  On the U.S. spectrum, both are likely to be placed slightly left of center.

 

The NDP part is certainly left wing -- but not as "left wing" as many of the new "progressive" Democrats.

 

The Green Party, IMHO, is hard to place on the spectrum.  When I look at their platform, some of their policies don't really look VERY centrist (over even right-wing) to me.  (i.e. their platform specifically calls out increases in defence spending, and reducing bureaucracy for small businesses)