2019 Federal Election

[MidTowner]

He explained the relevance in his last sentence: "widespread dissatisfaction in a geographical area is bad for the union."

That's accurate. Dissatisfaction that is dispersed geographically is a lot less likely to manifest itself in ways that are threatening to cohesion than dissatisfaction that is concentrated among one regional population. Maybe that's less true in the modern era than in the past, but it's still true.

Edit: I say that because you said "of equal importance to the country." Of course the state needs to pay more attention to 8% of voters who comprise almost a third of voters in a specific region, than 8% of voters who are spread evenly. The former group could, if ignored, threaten to separate and threaten the state's very existence.

That's an awfully cynical belief.

Leaving widespread dissatisfaction to fester is how we get things like Trump, which I'd argue is pretty bad for the US.

That's not a belief, it's a fact. I don't personally believe widespread dissatisfaction should be ignored, but it's definitely factual to say that regionally concentrated dissatisfaction is a bigger threat to the state.

[MidTowner]

Should we try to predict the outcome of the election locally?

Will any seats turn over?

I think that both Cambridge and Kitchener South-Hespeler will, given recent polling. Waterloo and Kitchener Centre will vote the same way as last time.

[taylortbb]

Should we try to predict the outcome of the election locally?

Will any seats turn over?

I think that both Cambridge and Kitchener South-Hespeler will, given recent polling. Waterloo and Kitchener Centre will vote the same way as last time.

Agree, except that I think Kitchener Centre is more likely to be Green this time. Morrice clearly has the momentum, and that poll is going to shake loose a lot of strategic vote.

[MidTowner]

I think that the Green Party will probably come in second in Kitchener Centre, but are you predicting that they will win the riding?

It's supposedly something like one in ten voters in a typical federal election that consider voting strategically. Plenty of people just have the Liberal Party as their preferred choice. I agree that information to the effect that there is little risk of the Tories winning will embolden some would-be Liberal voters to vote Green, but I don't think it will be enough.

[ijmorlan]

What about Trump ?  He is most likely going to be reelected.  His ratings are high, so apparently the Americans like him..  All my American friends are voting for him again because they think he is great.

That bit about the ratings is sarcasm, right? I know his ratings are shockingly high, but in terms of actually achieving re-election, they’re pretty low. At this point there are only two kinds of Trump supporters: unindicted co-conspirators, and useful idiots.

[ijmorlan]

As to your questions, no, square root doesn't make sense because it still breaks proportionality, in this case by giving minorities more power. And no, I did explicitly state that 30% or 35% in your example is fine...

That’s still a circular argument: Square root is bad because it’s not proportional; We need proportional because it’s proportional.

I gave the justification for square root already: it approximates a proportionality between votes and power in the assembly. It turns out that to make power proportional, you can’t make representation proportional. Under PR, a party that gets 55% of the vote gets all the power and can ignore the other 45% of the population. Not so easy with square root.

[jeffster]

What about Trump ?  He is most likely going to be reelected.  His ratings are high, so apparently the Americans like him..  All my American friends are voting for him again because they think he is great.

That bit about the ratings is sarcasm, right? I know his ratings are shockingly high, but in terms of actually achieving re-election, they’re pretty low. At this point there are only two kinds of Trump supporters: unindicted co-conspirators, and useful idiots.

At this point, I think, unless Trump is successfully impeached, he'll be in for another 4 years guaranteed. And whether one likes him or not, attacking his base, like what Clinton did by calling those on the right 'deplorable' only fires up the base more. This election is going to be close, not because Scheer would make an ok, or good, or great PM, he likely wouldn't, but it's those on the left continual attack on any that don't share the same beliefs.

I seem to recall a week or so ago people, especially the LGBTQQIP2SAA community, attacking Ellen DeGeneres because she was caught sitting and, communicating with George W. Bush. She pointed out that she has a lot of friends that don't share her belief, and that you don't have to have the same beliefs to be friends. Yet for many on both sides, you're not allowed to think for yourself, nor can you be friends with people that don't have the same belief system, which is truly sad that we have gotten to that point.

Lots of intelligent people like Trump, and indeed, will prefer him over what the left-side has to offer, which at this point in time is Elizabeth Warren -- who seems to be the favourite. Lots of intelligent people too don't like 'elitists', which tends to gravitate towards the left.

It used to be we had a right of centre party (PC's), right (for a short period of years - Reform), centralist (Liberal), and left (NDP). I'd argue that there was not a heck of a difference between government between 1984 and 2006.

I'm just saying though, that attacking people, either to the right, or to the left, is 100% uncalled for.

[danbrotherston]

That bit about the ratings is sarcasm, right? I know his ratings are shockingly high, but in terms of actually achieving re-election, they’re pretty low. At this point there are only two kinds of Trump supporters: unindicted co-conspirators, and useful idiots.

At this point, I think, unless Trump is successfully impeached, he'll be in for another 4 years guaranteed.  And whether one likes him or not, attacking his base, like what Clinton did by calling those on the right 'deplorable' only fires up the base more. This election is going to be close, not because Scheer would make an ok, or good, or great PM, he likely wouldn't, but it's those on the left continual attack on any that don't share the same beliefs.

I seem to recall a week or so ago people, especially the LGBTQQIP2SAA community, attacking Ellen DeGeneres because she was caught sitting and, communicating with George W. Bush.  She pointed out that she has a lot of friends that don't share her belief, and that you don't have to have the same beliefs to be friends. Yet for many on both sides, you're not allowed to think for yourself, nor can you be friends with people that don't have the same belief system, which is truly sad that we have gotten to that point.

Lots of intelligent people like Trump, and indeed, will prefer him over what the left-side has to offer, which at this point in time is Elizabeth Warren -- who seems to be the favourite. Lots of intelligent people too don't like 'elitists', which tends to gravitate towards the left.

It used to be we had a right of centre party (PC's), right (for a short period of years - Reform), centralist (Liberal), and left (NDP). I'd argue that there was not a heck of a difference between government between 1984 and 2006.

I'm just saying though, that attacking people, either to the right, or to the left, is 100% uncalled for.

What in the world makes you say this? I certainly don't see Trump willingly leaving the white house, but I really don't think he'll win the next election, and the polls agree with me.

This "don't support those who share the same beliefs" is true, at times, and it can be a problem, the right is far more unified, they'll get behind any crazy person who wins a primary (you might want to ask what this says about conservative folks), but why shouldn't the LGBTQ (nice job trying to ridicule them with excessive letters) community object to someone cozying up with someone who denied them their basic humanity? I can have friends who don't share my beliefs, I have many, but I am unwilling to have friends who dehumanize other people.  Whether you think Bush qualifies or not, might be up for debate but I'm so tired of this "oh, they're just different beliefs" being applied to inhumane hateful dehumanizing actions.

As for Trump, there is no excuse, Trump supporters are either brainwashed or corrupt, there is no other option, the reality of the situation is crystal clear.

[jeffster]

At this point, I think, unless Trump is successfully impeached, he'll be in for another 4 years guaranteed.  And whether one likes him or not, attacking his base, like what Clinton did by calling those on the right 'deplorable' only fires up the base more. This election is going to be close, not because Scheer would make an ok, or good, or great PM, he likely wouldn't, but it's those on the left continual attack on any that don't share the same beliefs.

I seem to recall a week or so ago people, especially the LGBTQQIP2SAA community, attacking Ellen DeGeneres because she was caught sitting and, communicating with George W. Bush.  She pointed out that she has a lot of friends that don't share her belief, and that you don't have to have the same beliefs to be friends. Yet for many on both sides, you're not allowed to think for yourself, nor can you be friends with people that don't have the same belief system, which is truly sad that we have gotten to that point.

Lots of intelligent people like Trump, and indeed, will prefer him over what the left-side has to offer, which at this point in time is Elizabeth Warren -- who seems to be the favourite. Lots of intelligent people too don't like 'elitists', which tends to gravitate towards the left.

It used to be we had a right of centre party (PC's), right (for a short period of years - Reform), centralist (Liberal), and left (NDP). I'd argue that there was not a heck of a difference between government between 1984 and 2006.

I'm just saying though, that attacking people, either to the right, or to the left, is 100% uncalled for.

What in the world makes you say this? I certainly don't see Trump willingly leaving the white house, but I really don't think he'll win the next election, and the polls agree with me.

This "don't support those who share the same beliefs" is true, at times, and it can be a problem, the right is far more unified, they'll get behind any crazy person who wins a primary (you might want to ask what this says about conservative folks), but why shouldn't the LGBTQ (nice job trying to ridicule them with excessive letters) community object to someone cozying up with someone who denied them their basic humanity? I can have friends who don't share my beliefs, I have many, but I am unwilling to have friends who dehumanize other people.  Whether you think Bush qualifies or not, might be up for debate but I'm so tired of this "oh, they're just different beliefs" being applied to inhumane hateful dehumanizing actions.

As for Trump, there is no excuse, Trump supporters are either brainwashed or corrupt, there is no other option, the reality of the situation is crystal clear.

As for the highlighted stuff, this was required at my daughters high-school. Certain things like 2S (2 spirited), A (asexual) and Q (questioning) are especially important, and they don't want to be left out, not at KCI (or Forest Heights where my attends). Do some research FIRST before accusing me of ridiculing. If was going to ridicule, it would have been LBGTQUUDKWOLLSMWJMMJKLSFJL. That's ridicule.

As for politicians doing inhumane things, well, they all be guilty of that, which is one main reason why I would never vote for any political party, ever. That said, people do change. I don't know if/how Bush changed. My take on Bush was that he was always the 'dog' -- as in, "the tail that wags the dog". The tail being Cheney.

As for Trump supporters -- the vocal ones for sure are brainwashed, or too much New York Post reading, and reality TV watching. As for is voting base, the deplorable's, they're not brainwashed. In the US, you're either Conservative, Liberal, swing (and/or independent) or you don't give a crap. Conservatives will vote Republican, no matter what, just like Liberals will vote Democrats, no matter what. The job of either party is to get the votes from swing/independent voters, and maybe those that don't give a crap.

The US economy is strong, it's dealing with immigration issues, and strong arming trading partners. For 50% of Americans (90% of Cons, 10% of Libs) there is not much to dislike. Sure, their president is a clown, a blowhard, and looks like a Florida orange attached to a malformed potato.

Again, though, some are attacking people to the right for sticking to Trump (and in Ontario, voting in Ford...). It's doesn't say anything about these folks, other than to say that they're sick and tired of the same ole', same ole'. I was surprised that both these guys got in, though I think Ford and Trump are entirely different, other than their weight and hair colour. But attacking those that vote them in, only solidifies that base.

One could also argue the same about anyone getting behind a leader that has had several incidents of racism (blackface), groping women, and embarrassing visits to other countries (India in particular).

Here is an interesting article on why Trump would win:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-t...ds-up.html

Key is economy. If things hold up, he gets in for sure.

As for the Democrats, they don't have a great selection of candidates. This will do them in.

For what it's worth, I think Scheer was a poor choice for the Conservatives and I don't believe he'll win. I'm still thinking Trudeau with a decent minority to very slim majority. Also for what it's worth, I predicted Trump primary and election win, despite the laughs.

[jgsz]

Scheer says he expects the leader with most seats will form government

Well, no.  If no party gets a majority then the first party to cobble together a majority will form the government.  That's how a democracy works.  Scheer is keenly aware that if he doesn't win a majority no other party will support the Conservatives.  Maybe the People's Party of Canada would support him but they may not get any seats at all.  

If the Liberals fail to get a majority they will have no problem forming a government with the NDP (and the Greens if their seats are needed).   And I hope that Scheer will not go on a Harperesque rant against coalition governments.  Of course he might but that would be sheer folly.

[MidTowner]

There is a great deal of talk about the spectre of a "coalition government." My view is that the Conservatives are just using it as part of their get out the vote right now, but they'll continue to push it if the PM does anything but promptly resign if the Tories win the most seats next week.

I think you're wrong on a couple of counts. "Scheer is keenly aware that if he doesn't win a majority no other party will support the Conservatives." That's not true, and recent history disproves it. It is very conceivable that the Tories could govern, supported by the Bloc on some issues and strategic abstaining by the NDP and Liberals. That isn't hard to imagine.

"If the Liberals fail to get a majority they will have no problem forming a government with the NDP (and the Greens if their seats are needed)." I think that's wrong, too. Not that it can't happen, or is impossible, but "no problem" is an understatement. There are plenty of risks to them. Trudeau will have lost after a single majority government, quite a feat, and there will be plenty of Liberals I'm sure questioning whether they will want to be seen as moving even further to the left.

[jgsz]

There is a great deal of talk about the spectre of a "coalition government." My view is that the Conservatives are just using it as part of their get out the vote right now, but they'll continue to push it if the PM does anything but promptly resign if the Tories win the most seats next week.

I think you're wrong on a couple of counts. "Scheer is keenly aware that if he doesn't win a majority no other party will support the Conservatives." That's not true, and recent history disproves it. It is very conceivable that the Tories could govern, supported by the Bloc on some issues and strategic abstaining by the NDP and Liberals. That isn't hard to imagine.

"If the Liberals fail to get a majority they will have no problem forming a government with the NDP (and the Greens if their seats are needed)." I think that's wrong, too. Not that it can't happen, or is impossible, but "no problem" is an understatement. There are plenty of risks to them. Trudeau will have lost after a single majority government, quite a feat, and there will be plenty of Liberals I'm sure questioning whether they will want to be seen as moving even further to the left.

Both your points are valid, of course.  I was just cutting to the chase of the final outcome.  Both major parties will pay a steep price if they want to govern with the help of another party. And they should.

[MidTowner]

Yes, they should, and you're right that they will. No matter which party winds up governing in a minority situation, the other will claim that they are somehow undermining democracy in doing so, and score some points in doing so. But I really do think that the "We won most seats, we should govern" argument resonates sufficiently well with many Canadians that it is essentially true, and the Liberals will not push for anything else should they lose the seat count.

[plam]

New Brunswick just elected 22 PC vs 21 Liberals plus 3 Green and 3 People's Alliance last October. The Liberals were government before the election and tried to govern but lost a confidence vote. But there is recent precedent for not resigning and the outcome depends on the numbers.

[MidTowner]

You're right that there's precedent. There is also precedent in BC for the narrow loser of the seat count to govern with a third party. So anything is really possible.

The CBC poll tracker currently projects the very interesting situation of an extremely hung parliament: 130 for each of the two main parties, 38 for each of the NDP and Bloc, and two for the Green. Whoever governs would need the support of more than one other smaller party. The party whence the Speaker is drawn would also matter in this situation.

If Bernier won his seat, and there was one or more independent successful, it could be really interesting. Maybe someone or more than one person could be persuaded to cross the floor (remember David Emerson?).