Posts: 7,731
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
212
(10-18-2019, 11:32 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Well, the real opposite of "authoritarianism" is broad individual freedom. Concentration of power is only part of it. And while it's true that the powers of the House of Commons are concentrated in the PMO when we have a majority government, and that might be a problem, the powers of the state are not particularly highly concentrated in the House of Commons to begin with. A majority government still has to compromise with the Senate, with existing legislation as interpreted by the courts, and of course with the provinces.
Edit to add: I think it would be hard to argue that uncertainty in government is anything but bad. Even if policies are not in your interest, that's going to happen sometimes, but with general certainty of the policies that will be implemented, citizens can prepare for them and do their own planning with them in mind. Less uncertainty is not the primary consideration, but it definitely is one.
I think concentration of power is part of limiting individual freedoms. For example, the liberals are right now, seeking to limit my freedom to vote for my party of choice (and yes, social pressure is limiting of freedoms, although not as tyranical as actual laws). As for compromise with the senate...that's a good joke....and the courts, sadly that's rather funny too given that the courts have declared the provincial governments cancelling of cap and trade as illegal, and yet, we still have no cap and trade. But regardless, yes, there are checks and balances....like everything, this is a spectrum, not an either or, people who support a "strong" government run by a single party with only a minority of public support are in favour of a more authoritarian dictatorial government than those who prefer a "weaker" minority government which finds broad compromise and support among a majority of the population.
Posts: 4,402
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
189
(10-18-2019, 01:49 PM)jeffster Wrote: (10-18-2019, 11:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's funny because you're all explaining how a minority government is better than a majority.
And I'm getting election ads from the liberals talking about how we need a "strong" government...which is pretty much code for having a majority government with authoritarian abilities...
Minority governments sometimes are better -- especially when you have two different viewpoints representing.
An unlikely but cool minority government: Liberal + Conservative. It likely would be able to represent most Canadians on most issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_coalition
I agree it doesn’t seem likely in the current climate in this country.
I get the impression it happens more often in places where coalitions are common, and occasionally the smaller parties go too far, to the extent that the big parties just split their differences and work together rather than each trying to attract enough small party support to form a government.
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(10-18-2019, 02:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think concentration of power is part of limiting individual freedoms. For example, the liberals are right now, seeking to limit my freedom to vote for my party of choice
Huh? What did I miss here? I read the old messages, too, and I don't see how anyone in this election is attempting to restrict anyone's right to vote as they please.
Posts: 7,731
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
212
(10-18-2019, 04:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (10-18-2019, 02:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think concentration of power is part of limiting individual freedoms. For example, the liberals are right now, seeking to limit my freedom to vote for my party of choice
Huh? What did I miss here? I read the old messages, too, and I don't see how anyone in this election is attempting to restrict anyone's right to vote as they please.
The Liberals routinely argue for strategic voting...
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(10-18-2019, 04:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (10-18-2019, 04:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Huh? What did I miss here? I read the old messages, too, and I don't see how anyone in this election is attempting to restrict anyone's right to vote as they please.
The Liberals routinely argue for strategic voting...
And the Conservatives argue that an NDP-backed Liberal government would be worse than the apocalypse. And every other party has other reasons for telling you to vote for them. Nevertheless, no one is actually restricting (or even proposing to restrict) anyone's right to vote for whomever they choose.
Posts: 4,402
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
189
(10-18-2019, 02:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: For example, the liberals are right now, seeking to limit my freedom to vote for my party of choice (and yes, social pressure is limiting of freedoms, although not as tyranical as actual laws).
I would gently suggest coming up with different language to describe this situation. Although you do mention that social pressure is not as tyrannical as actual laws, I don’t think that’s good enough. I think it’s insulting to people whose freedom to vote is actually limited (unable to vote due to unavailability of voting stations, intimidating behaviour by police or informal armed or just imposing groups, laws preventing candidates from running based on spurious rationales) to say that a campaign effort to encourage a certain way of voting is limiting your freedom to vote.
Even the social pressure is pretty gentle, and diffuse as well. There is probably as much social pressure to vote for different parties. In some circles, everybody is pro-NDP, or pro-Green, or pro-Conservative, and the level of acceptance of political differences varies.
Posts: 2,879
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
98
Final Predictions
Liberal: 139
Conservative: 137
Bloc: 31
NDP: 27
Greens: 2
PPC: 0
Independant: 2
We'll see how close we get to this:
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
CBC poll tracker:
Liberal: 137
Conservative: 124
Bloc: 39
NDP: 35
Green: 1
PPC:1
Independent: 1
Posts: 2,004
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
125
I'm disappointed that Mike Morrice wasn't able to improve his share compared to earlier polling, but it does seem that there is a pretty good Green Party base in this region. I suspect there are a lot of disaffected PC voters who have shifted to them.
I didn't even dream it was possible, but CBC is now showing Kitchener-Conestoga going to the Liberals!
Posts: 996
Threads: 21
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
61
(10-22-2019, 06:20 AM)jamincan Wrote: I'm disappointed that Mike Morrice wasn't able to improve his share compared to earlier polling, but it does seem that there is a pretty good Green Party base in this region. I suspect there are a lot of disaffected PC voters who have shifted to them.
I didn't even dream it was possible, but CBC is now showing Kitchener-Conestoga going to the Liberals!
Kitchener-Conestoga going Liberal would make me very happy. Harold Albrecht is way too extreme for my taste.
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(10-22-2019, 06:20 AM)jamincan Wrote: I'm disappointed that Mike Morrice wasn't able to improve his share compared to earlier polling, but it does seem that there is a pretty good Green Party base in this region. I suspect there are a lot of disaffected PC voters who have shifted to them.
He ran a strong campaign, and getting roughly 25% of the vote is a great showing for a party that does not (at least currently) have any major role on the national level. There are surely still many voters, too, who didn't think he had a chance and voted for someone else instead.
It's a great base to build from, should he decide to run again.
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
(10-22-2019, 07:12 AM)jgsz Wrote: (10-22-2019, 06:20 AM)jamincan Wrote: I didn't even dream it was possible, but CBC is now showing Kitchener-Conestoga going to the Liberals!
Kitchener-Conestoga going Liberal would make me very happy. Harold Albrecht is way too extreme for my taste.
Albrecht is indeed a pretty extreme social conservative. Kitchener-Conestoga is getting more suburban, though, and that has surely helped Tim Louis. It does look like it's going to go to a recount this time around, too (Albrecht won by 251 votes in 2015, Louis is ahead by 273 this time, with 211 of 216 polls reporting).
Posts: 73
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
2
Elections Canada & CBC showing this as a Liberal win now, though still only 211/216 polls with 273 lead.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.5330361
Liberals sweep all 5 in the region.
Posts: 10,489
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
329
It's final, with Louis winning by 305 votes (subject to potential recount).
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...-12-hours/
Posts: 4,402
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
189
(10-22-2019, 05:22 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It's final, with Louis winning by 305 votes (subject to potential recount).
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...-12-hours/
And a probable example of the Liberals, rather than the Conservatives, winning a seat due to a vote split, in this case with the People’s Party. Although in this case I suspect they also would have won with a ranked ballot because Green and NDP voters would probably prefer a Liberal candidate to Conservative. Interesting!
|
