Voted Conservative, I think Harper steered us pretty well through the recession with his budget.

conservative majority now we don't have the worry of an election every five minutes. we'll talk again in 2015 in the next election.:smile_coffe e:

Five years when the only party with any money is the Conservative party, because they cut the major source of funding from the rest of the parties? Nah. I give up on Canadian politics. It's hit a new low, even if we had a larger turnout than last time.

If I want propaganda in 5 years, I'll find a bunch of old newspapers from East Germany. At least that propaganda lost in the end.

aaaaaaaaaand there goes multiparty democracy

I think the major problem was vote-splitting and people not voting strategically x__x I mean, project democracy was a good attempt to overthrow the conservatives, but not enough people knew about it.

that being said, I'm glad that Jack Layton became leader of the opposition, and super happy that Elizabeth May won a seat in parliament. It's about time.

still mad that we're stuck with a majority conservative government for 4 years, when most Canadians didn't even vote conservative.

^ The major problem is the first-past-the-post system. The actual percentage of votes cast is not proportionately reflected in the seat count. As an example, the Conservatives gained 19 seats in Ontario with only a 5% increase in votes cast. That's hardly democracy.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see any change with a Conservative majority in power, as voting reform would hurt the Conservatives most.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^ The major problem is the first-past-the-post system. The actual percentage of votes cast is not proportionately reflected in the seat count. As an example, the Conservatives gained 19 seats in Ontario with only a 5% increase in votes cast. That's hardly democracy.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see any change with a Conservative majority in power, as voting reform would hurt the Conservatives most.

For those who haven't seen this video

Originally Posted by mike_302

Five years when the only party with any money is the Conservative party, because they cut the major source of funding from the rest of the parties? Nah. I give up on Canadian politics. It's hit a new low, even if we had a larger turnout than last time.

If I want propaganda in 5 years, I'll find a bunch of old newspapers from East Germany. At least that propaganda lost in the end.

....Great day for Harper

Originally Posted by ooburii

I think the major problem was vote-splitting and people not voting strategically x__x I mean, project democracy was a good attempt to overthrow the conservatives, but not enough people knew about it.

that being said, I'm glad that Jack Layton became leader of the opposition, and super happy that Elizabeth May won a seat in parliament. It's about time.

still mad that we're stuck with a majority conservative government for 4 years, when most Canadians didn't even vote conservative.

Actually, what you saw was strategic voting. Many centrist Liberals strategically voted Conservative to keep the NDP out.

People talk about this anybody but Harper thing as if it is supposed to be some universal truth. I hope that the left wingers can see that they were not speaking for everyone like some seemed to think they were. Last night on the coverage people were blaming the increase in conservative seats on people voting for them just to keep the NDP out... Looks like the desire was to keep the liberals down, since the NDP captured more seats than usual. The liberal party is in reality probably closer to the conservative party than the NDPs as they have been moving to the centre and the conservatives are centre-right, as opposed to the NDP who are solidly left. Given this it makes more sense to see Canada as a Conservative + Liberal vs Else situation rather than a Liberal + NDP + Else vs Conservative situation. Chances are that the increased conservative seats were due to liberals converting to conservative due to disatisfaction with their party/leader/platform not simply to stop the NDP.

Of course given that the % of votes obtained by the conservatives did fall short of 50% people will make the argument that xx% of Canadians don't want the cons in wah wah wah. Turn the argument around and see that much less voted for the party they are trying to boost when they say this. So in reality MORE Canadians were decisively choosing the conservative party than any other SINGLE party. That's the way the game is played, stop crying and try again in four years.

I will make this note though. I support anyone voting for the party they want in power. Fair enough, that's democracy. But as I have moved on into starting a career, and making money such that I pay taxes and receive much less in subsidies than when I was just a student, I will say that it is a little worrying living so close to the University, knowing that the majority of students, who make so little that they do not contribute income taxes to the nation/province, will vote for the party that gives the most handouts with little real concern for the people who will be effectively paying for them but not receiving any benefit for their hard earned tax dollars. Also, being that they are mostly living in rented accommodations, they are not directly contributing property taxes. So at the end of the day, they get to vote for an MP in a riding that they do not contribute financially to, other than the obvious filling of the University's coffers.

This ends my rant. Many will disagree, some may agree, but such is politics. Regardless of which party anyone on here voted for, I would like to express appreciation to anyone who did in fact vote, as it shows strong democratic interest and promotes continued future attention to politics and the governance of our country/provinces/municipalities.

PS - My comments are my own and I do not intend to offend anyone.

Everyone keeps saying "next time around, 4/5 years"... But as Harper's promised, you need to realize that every other party will be financially ruined now that Harper's got a majority. Next time around will not so much be an election as it is the Prime Minister campaigning next to a bunch of poor candidates who are risking all of their own money to do any campaigning that they DO manage. Harper will manage to funnel money into his own campaign by having some cabinet minister write up a bill, getting it passed in the House, and re-writing it with black pen overtop of the original document,

Originally Posted by 19841984

Of course given that the % of votes obtained by the conservatives did fall short of 50% people will make the argument that xx% of Canadians don't want the cons in wah wah wah. Turn the argument around and see that much less voted for the party they are trying to boost when they say this. So in reality MORE Canadians were decisively choosing the conservative party than any other SINGLE party. That's the way the game is played, stop crying and try again in four years.

Yep, that's how the FPTP system works. And just because the "game is played" that way doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Unless, of course, you happen to be Mr. Harper and hence will do everything in your power to ensure this flawed voting system doesn't change.

Just for everyone's enlightenment, which system would you suggest we adopt, if not FPTP? Or what changes are to be made?

Keep in mind that we distinguish between majority and minority governments based on not just the most seats, but the 50% rule. Although the idea of majority vs minority is really just the idea that the government will or will not have sufficient majority voting power within their party. So just because a party is elected as the leading party and their leader as PM, with say 40% of the votes, this does not mean that they hold all of the power...

If we use a strict majority voting system, well clearly 50%+ Canadians cannot all agree on the same party. So we will have issues with that.

If we use party-proportional systems, we will basically have the same result as a weak minority government, where multiple parties have a large say on issues. Unfortunately the parties typically have problems with agreeing on things and the government will likely be short lived. The chances of backdoor politics and deals being made are also higher.

If we separately vote for MP and PM, well we could end up with the regions being represented by people completely disconnected from the leader of the country. Imagine for instance, 75% of the regions being represented by the NDP or Conservative parties for instance, but the PM is from the Liberals or Greens. In this case there would really be no point to even elect a PM because they would be ineffectual.

I am no political scientist or theorist, so I am sure there are systems I am not aware of that may have benefits, but to me FPTP seems to be the most representative way to vote. I think people need to remember that we are electing MPs not PMs. The end result is a PM but your concern is to elect the voice of your area. If the largest number of areas are chosen from one party, then that party should be the guiding party for the government, aka their leader should be PM. If not, we would have so much wasted time sitting down playing kumbaya around the campfire and holding hands to decide which direction to go on every little issue.

Originally Posted by 19841984

Just for everyone's enlightenment, which system would you suggest we adopt, if not FPTP? Or what changes are to be made?

Keep in mind that we distinguish between majority and minority governments based on not just the most seats, but the 50% rule. Although the idea of majority vs minority is really just the idea that the government will or will not have sufficient majority voting power within their party. So just because a party is elected as the leading party and their leader as PM, with say 40% of the votes, this does not mean that they hold all of the power...

If we use a strict majority voting system, well clearly 50%+ Canadians cannot all agree on the same party. So we will have issues with that.

If we use party-proportional systems, we will basically have the same result as a weak minority government, where multiple parties have a large say on issues. Unfortunately the parties typically have problems with agreeing on things and the government will likely be short lived. The chances of backdoor politics and deals being made are also higher.

If we separately vote for MP and PM, well we could end up with the regions being represented by people completely disconnected from the leader of the country. Imagine for instance, 75% of the regions being represented by the NDP or Conservative parties for instance, but the PM is from the Liberals or Greens. In this case there would really be no point to even elect a PM because they would be ineffectual.

I am no political scientist or theorist, so I am sure there are systems I am not aware of that may have benefits, but to me FPTP seems to be the most representative way to vote. I think people need to remember that we are electing MPs not PMs. The end result is a PM but your concern is to elect the voice of your area. If the largest number of areas are chosen from one party, then that party should be the guiding party for the government, aka their leader should be PM. If not, we would have so much wasted time sitting down playing kumbaya around the campfire and holding hands to decide which direction to go on every little issue.

Eliminates strategic voting, but almost guarantees a minority government where nothing gets done.

Originally Posted by I r Babboon

For those who haven't seen this video

^^^

sad, but true.