Straight Dope Message Board

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And that one word right there sums up why I've abandoned the modern Conservatives parties. Take a look at this thread. We've got a lot of right-leaning people for whom the entire election seem to turn on Trudeau, and who are making only ad hominem attacks against both him and the people who may be voting for him. No discussion of policy, no context, nothing at all of substance.

Then compare it to everyone posting about why they won't vote for Scheer. No one is trying to come up with a cutesy insulting nickname. Lots of people have posted exactly why they oppose Scheer's policies, and why the support Trudeau's policies, even if they don't particularly like Trudeau himself as a person.

Despite all the Conservatives talking about people "drinking the Koolaid", it's painfully clear which side of this discussion is actually thinking about things clearly, and it isn't the conservative side.

Precisely. I have to make a decision not just on policy but with whom I want to stand. Do I want to stand with people who use terms like "Obummer", "Killary" and "Trudope"? No. No, I don't actually. I'd like to keep such venomous partisan crap south of the border. So it that's who the CPoC supporters are choosing to be then they're going to lose moderatve conservatives, like me because I won't stand with them. 151

[This_Just_In...]

Conservatives and the conservative media will relentlessly hammer this issue until October 21st because many Conservatives passionately hate Trudeau and see this as a way to have the Liberals lose the election. Unfortunately I think the overwhelming amount of outrage over an apologetic person having worn some costumes (believably out of ignorance and without any intent to offend) belittles more harmful acts of racism that minorities face daily. Anger from an offended minority could be understandable. But when the political party that is mostly not made up of minorities (and is generally much less concerned about minorities) suddenly politicizes and weaponizes fake racism outrage it serves to further demean real racism problems. 152

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

Precisely. I have to make a decision not just on policy but with whom I want to stand. Do I want to stand with people who use terms like "Obummer", "Killary" and "Trudope"? No. No, I don't actually. I'd like to keep such venomous partisan crap south of the border. So it that's who the CPoC supporters are choosing to be then they're going to lose moderatve conservatives, like me because I won't stand with them.

Exactly right. And they keep doubling down on this. I was going to vote PC in the last Ontario election, right up until they chose Doug Ford as the new party leader. They had two perfectly fine moderate candidates they could have chosen, either of whom I could have supported with a clear conscience, but they went out of their way to chose the least qualified candidate for office I've ever seen in my life. 153

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Exactly right. And they keep doubling down on this. I was going to vote PC in the last Ontario election, right up until they chose Doug Ford as the new party leader. They had two perfectly fine moderate candidates they could have chosen, either of whom I could have supported with a clear conscience, but they went out of their way to chose the least qualified candidate for office I've ever seen in my life.

But at least your beer only costs you a buck now. 154

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

But at least your beer only costs you a buck now.

God.

Okay, "Buck a Beer" was just the perfect encapsulation of what is wrong with these guys now. Anyone who bothered to do the math on it knew it wasn't a long-term sustainable proposal, but the "party that can do math" didn't seem to notice that.

And while they were screwing that all up, they still haven't delivered on expanding beer sales to more retail locations, which is a thing the government actually could do relatively easily, and which I actually supported. So, 0/2 on the Beer Policies.

And while they were at it, they screwed up the Pot Legalization so much they managed to do something I would have sworn was impossible: They lost money selling drugs. This is even worse than Trump's casinos! How is that even possible?!?! 155

[Grey]

You know what surprises me on a lot of this? It's the silence from the Conservative party on the foreign policy failures by Trudeau and the liberals.

1. Failed trip to India - leave aside the dressing up and lay out exactly how you're going to leverage our massive Indian immigrant population to get access to the Indian market
2. China - the government had to fire their own political appointee/party member for appearing so in the bag for the CCP that even the Canadian public couldn't miss it
2a. China - the government's response to direct attacks on Canadian exporters in agriculture has been..well a lot of grave sounding concern.
2b. China/others - the existence of CCP/other govt.) funded groups in Canada acting against ethnic communities and/or students seems to be unopposed
2c. China - hostage diplomacy that has stirred only tut tuts
3. Hong Kong - what's our position here? Massive popular protests for rule of law, self determination and ... nothing really.

To be fair we've got a tripwire force in the Baltic, but where are our ideas on strengthening NATO? What happened to maritime enforcement in the North? I don't really expect the Greens or the NDP to have views on these but a Conservative party that's deadly silent on foreign policy is ridiculous. 156

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Horatius

God.

Okay, "Buck a Beer" was just the perfect encapsulation of what is wrong with these guys now. Anyone who bothered to do the math on it knew it wasn't a long-term sustainable proposal, but the "party that can do math" didn't seem to notice that.

And while they were screwing that all up, they still haven't delivered on expanding beer sales to more retail locations, which is a thing the government actually could do relatively easily, and which I actually supported. So, 0/2 on the Beer Policies.

And while they were at it, they screwed up the Pot Legalization so much they managed to do something I would have sworn was impossible: They lost money selling drugs. This is even worse than Trump's casinos! How is that even possible?!?!

As funny as that it, I have to assume it was because this was due to it being the rolling out year and so there's upfront costs. Plus, the scale was pretty small. As the scale increases the revenues should increase too.

But still funny. 157

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Grey

You know what surprises me on a lot of this? It's the silence from the Conservative party on the foreign policy failures by Trudeau and the liberals.

1. Failed trip to India - leave aside the dressing up and lay out exactly how you're going to leverage our massive Indian immigrant population to get access to the Indian market
2. China - the government had to fire their own political appointee/party member for appearing so in the bag for the CCP that even the Canadian public couldn't miss it
2a. China - the government's response to direct attacks on Canadian exporters in agriculture has been..well a lot of grave sounding concern.
2b. China/others - the existence of CCP/other govt.) funded groups in Canada acting against ethnic communities and/or students seems to be unopposed
2c. China - hostage diplomacy that has stirred only tut tuts
3. Hong Kong - what's our position here? Massive popular protests for rule of law, self determination and ... nothing really.

To be fair we've got a tripwire force in the Baltic, but where are our ideas on strengthening NATO? What happened to maritime enforcement in the North? I don't really expect the Greens or the NDP to have views on these but a Conservative party that's deadly silent on foreign policy is ridiculous.

All of them have been bad at talking about foreign policy.

Did you catch in the debates when May seemed to suggest that Russia was landing troops in the Canadian arctic? Oh boy. My last couple of years in the military were centered around arctic sovereignty. Monitoring, disaster preparation, etc. I'm pretty sure the Russians aren't landing soldiers on Canadian soil in the Arctic.

Singh seems generally ill-prepared in general. The poor NDP. They've had some decent to good leaders with awful platforms. This year their platform is ok, but they're leader is ... well ... not so great.

Scheer said that the UN Relief Agency is encouraging terrorism in Palestine. Other than that, Scheer's talk on foreign policy seems to be "I'll do better than Trudeau by <mumble> <mumble>" Sorry I missed the part where you provide details. "Oh yes, you see I'll <cough> <cough> <mumble>." For example, he's called for a total reset with China. What does that mean? He says "Trudeau's not doing enough." What does that mean? What is he going to do? Scheer likes to talk tough, but I think as PM, I really don't see how or what he could or would do differently.

And Trudeau. Well, you covered Trudeau fairly weak foreign policy efforts.

I think we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that the next few years are going to be weak on the foreign stage no matter what.

Edit: I didn't agree with May basicially calling Scheer Trump's toady. I don't think that would be true. I think he would be friendlier with Trump but I don't think he would be his hand puppet. I saw that Ford was in the USA and said he would have voted for Trump and he was a "big Republican". So maybe I'm wrong about Scheer, but I think he's a more refined that Ford. Can we ship Ford to the USA like we did with Ted Cruz? He'd do great in Texas! 158

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Grey

You know what surprises me on a lot of this? It's the silence from the Conservative party on the foreign policy failures by Trudeau and the liberals.

1. Failed trip to India - leave aside the dressing up and lay out exactly how you're going to leverage our massive Indian immigrant population to get access to the Indian market
2. China - the government had to fire their own political appointee/party member for appearing so in the bag for the CCP that even the Canadian public couldn't miss it
2a. China - the government's response to direct attacks on Canadian exporters in agriculture has been..well a lot of grave sounding concern.
2b. China/others - the existence of CCP/other govt.) funded groups in Canada acting against ethnic communities and/or students seems to be unopposed
2c. China - hostage diplomacy that has stirred only tut tuts
3. Hong Kong - what's our position here? Massive popular protests for rule of law, self determination and ... nothing really.

To be fair we've got a tripwire force in the Baltic, but where are our ideas on strengthening NATO? What happened to maritime enforcement in the North? I don't really expect the Greens or the NDP to have views on these but a Conservative party that's deadly silent on foreign policy is ridiculous.

I am not sure but I strongly suspect that:

- The Conservative Party has no real definitive answers for what they would have done differently in these very difficult situations. I mean, particularly when dealing with China and the USA in this Time Of Trump. International relations have become particularly volatile, and China is hard to deal with at the best of times.

So what are the Conservatives going to say other than "we would have done it better.... by doing.... better stuff." I mean, SPECIFICALLY, how would they handle a situation where one ally (The USA) is pressuring you to follow international law by arresting a Chinese national.... and you KNOW that by doing so you will piss off China.

So in this case, how would a Conservative government have managed without pissing off either our largest trading partner with a volatile and frankly vindictive president OR our second largest trading partner, which has a habit of bullying other countries on trade? 159

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I am not sure but I strongly suspect that:

- The Conservative Party has no real definitive answers for what they would have done differently in these very difficult situations. I mean, particularly when dealing with China and the USA in this Time Of Trump. International relations have become particularly volatile, and China is hard to deal with at the best of times.

I think is the biggest factor is all of the "failures" listed above. The relationship with the US is the single most important one we have, whether we like it or not, and it will continue to be so for any foreseeable future. And since Trump was elected, it's been the worst any of us have ever seen it, largely because of Trump. Any Canadian PM would have dedicated most of their efforts to dealing with Trump, regardless of whether they were inclined to working with him or against him.

Sure, it would be nice if Canada could make China behave, or get the Saudis to ease up, but we just don't have that level of power, even in normal times. These days, I'm just glad they didn't let all of NAFTA blow up in our faces.

Anyone who thinks Harper or Scheer would have been spectacularly more successful than Trudeau is mostly fantasizing, I think. 160

[Grey]

The Liberals, in my view, honestly have done a fairly good job dealing with an American government led by a wildly uneducated conman with delusions of competency.

Honestly between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Chrystia Freeland I'd half hoped the Liberals would punt Trudeau, have either of those two win the leadership and then call the election. That would've been fun. 161

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I am not sure but I strongly suspect that:

- The Conservative Party has no real definitive answers for what they would have done differently in these very difficult situations. I mean, particularly when dealing with China and the USA in this Time Of Trump. International relations have become particularly volatile, and China is hard to deal with at the best of times.

So what are the Conservatives going to say other than "we would have done it better.... by doing.... better stuff." I mean, SPECIFICALLY, how would they handle a situation where one ally (The USA) is pressuring you to follow international law by arresting a Chinese national.... and you KNOW that by doing so you will piss off China.

So in this case, how would a Conservative government have managed without pissing off either our largest trading partner with a volatile and frankly vindictive president OR our second largest trading partner, which has a habit of bullying other countries on trade?

It reminds me of my last customer before I left IT (forever I hope).

"*Beep* Kill *Beep*, we cannot tell you what it is we want you to develop, but it certainly isn't this." 162

[This_Just_In...]

Canada is too small of a player to have any influence during the unpredictable and ongoing spat between Trump and China. We'd work best if the US leadership was earnestly trying to negotiate better ties - there are places Canada might find synergy with its resources and subsequently have better relations with China. But at least until January 2021 when a new President might come in it is best to tip toe around that mess. There is a trade war going on and since we're primarily aligned with the US we've faced some collateral repercussions from China. I'd say Trudeau has so far successfully navigated this from becoming far worse given Canada's weak hand. 163

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by This_Just_In...

There is a trade war going on and since we're primarily aligned with the US we've faced some collateral repercussions from China. I'd say Trudeau has so far successfully navigated this from becoming far worse given Canada's weak hand.

It seems to me that most of our problems with China started after we arrested that Huawei executive, at the request of the Trump administration.

And that was literally a no-win scenario for us. If we arrest her, we piss off China, if we don't arrest her, we piss off Trump. There's no middle ground for us. Any PM would have had to make a choice that would piss off one or the other, and as I discussed above, the US is simply far more important to us. No matter who the PM was, we'd be in China's bad books at this point. 164

[Grey]

I'm not arguing that a Canadian foreign policy is going to change Chinese behaviour but there's nothing stopping us from changing our behaviour. Do we have to continue to support the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? It's a competitor to the WTO and IMF which we've helped to build and allows China a prominent role in contesting the current international framework. Then there's Huawei... what are we going to do about a company so closely tied to the CCP? What about NATO? What about Arctic management and the incursions both Russia and China will make into not only our areas but the areas of our allies like Denmark and Norway?

The fact that an authoritarian regime like the CCP would eventually push us around is actually a bit of a relief. We have a much clearer sense of our positions now. 165

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And that one word right there sums up why I've abandoned the modern Conservatives parties. Take a look at this thread. We've got a lot of right-leaning people for whom the entire election seem to turn on Trudeau, and who are making only ad hominem attacks against both him and the people who may be voting for him. No discussion of policy, no context, nothing at all of substance.

Then compare it to everyone posting about why they won't vote for Scheer. No one is trying to come up with a cutesy insulting nickname. Lots of people have posted exactly why they oppose Scheer's policies, and why the support Trudeau's policies, even if they don't particularly like Trudeau himself as a person.

Despite all the Conservatives talking about people "drinking the Koolaid", it's painfully clear which side of this discussion is actually thinking about things clearly, and it isn't the conservative side.

He is an idiot, who actually is making his father look like a paragon of restraint and for me to say that about Pere Trudeau is saying something. Your going to find, if you have not already reached that conclusion is that for several generations of Canadians, the name Trudeau does not evoke confidence, competence, or conservatism. So far he has not demonstrated that the apple has fallen far from the tree with his early predilictions with other peoples culture, with the only caveat being that at least he did not go tear assing around Montreal in Nazi regalia during wartime.

I have been reminded here several times over the years, that I have to trust that the opposition party will not screw things up when they take charge. Clearly the people that are not voting for Scheer need to be reminded of that, and if we want something changed, then the people have spoken, even if its your pet cause. 166

[BeepKillBeep]

I don't understand your last sentence. I tried reading it several times.

What pet cause?

What people have spoken? 167

[Euphonious Polemic]

From what I can tell, he's just trying to convince us some more that we should vote Conservative because he really REALLY hates Justin Trudeau and still hates Pierre Trudeau.

That's about it, as far as I can see.

ETA: I'm not clear on why he quoted Horatius. He's not really replying to that post. 168

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

From what I can tell, he's just trying to convince us some more that we should vote Conservative because he really REALLY hates Justin Trudeau and still hates Pierre Trudeau.

That's about it, as far as I can see.

ETA: I'm not clear on why he quoted Horatius. He's not really replying to that post.

Sorry but at what time did i specifically ask, or try and convince people to vote conservative. And if by some chance you think i did, then by all means vote your choice brand. 169

[Declan]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

I don't understand your last sentence. I tried reading it several times.

What pet cause?

What people have spoken?

See Beep its like this, if Scheer drops any form of Carbon taxation some people might get upset, i call that a pet cause.

If Scheer is elected, and drops the CT, then thats called the people have spoken.

Any more clarity needed ? 170

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Declan

See Beep its like this, if Scheer drops any form of Carbon taxation some people might get upset, i call that a pet cause.

If Scheer is elected, and drops the CT, then thats called the people have spoken.

Any more clarity needed ?

I thought that might be what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with you. I think our elections will be relatively free and fair (there's already some foreign influence going on but in the Information Age stopping it is going to be difficult), and if the people elect Scheer then that's the legitimate government of the people. But the inverse is true if Trudeau is elected. 171

[Declan]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

IBut the inverse is true if Trudeau is elected.

Exactly, trust me its been a long five years.


His policy announcement recently about making 15k the minimum for income tax deductions sound like he expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax. Does that sound about right to you. 172

[BeepKillBeep]

Ugh. This pisses me off. Come on, Harper was being honored. It has nothing to do with the Trudeau blackface issue. People are stupid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...face-1.5294119 173

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Declan

Exactly, trust me its been a long five years.


His policy announcement recently about making 15k the minimum for income tax deductions sound like he expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax. Does that sound about right to you.

My Google Fu has failed. I cannot find this. Can you provide a link please (ideally to a relatively neutral source)? 174

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

Ugh. This pisses me off. Come on, Harper was being honored. It has nothing to do with the Trudeau blackface issue. People are stupid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...face-1.5294119

I agree. Harper was being honoured. This is not just false equivalence, it is stupid false equivalence.

I like this quote: ""When you point to that and you point at the colour on his face and you laugh at it, you're not laughing at Harper. You're laughing at the people that put the colour there." (The Southern Alberta Blood Tribe). 175

[Declan]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

My Google Fu has failed. I cannot find this. Can you provide a link please (ideally to a relatively neutral source)?

Global News 176

[Declan]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

Ugh. This pisses me off. Come on, Harper was being honored. It has nothing to do with the Trudeau blackface issue. People are stupid.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...face-1.5294119

If that was put out by the Liberal party I would be very much surprised. 177

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Declan

If that was put out by the Liberal party I would be very much surprised.

I think it was done by some basic random idiots. 178

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Declan

Global News

Yes, thanks for that - it's pretty easy to find Trudeau's promise to make the first $15,000 of income tax free.

I think the request was for the thought that "he expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax."

I can't find any information that says Trudeau expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax. This part sounds like idle speculation. 179

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Yes, thanks for that - it's pretty easy to find Trudeau's promise to make the first $15,000 of income tax free.

I think the request was for the thought that "he expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax."

I can't find any information that says Trudeau expects to make up the shortfall on the consumer side with a higher carbon tax. This part sounds like idle speculation.

If I have the math correct, right now the first 7k is tax free, if he gets elected and actually does increase the tax free amount then that would entail that there will be a shortfall in accounts recievable of 8k per person. Obviously depending on where he plans on drawing the line for who is entitled to that windfall. My bet is that he is well aware that the carbon tax will hit the lower tier tax payers hardest, and is simply swapping the income tax for the CT and justifying with people getting more control over what they pay on the consumer side.

As for him saying that, no he did not. I dont expect to see that in the papers until after the election, should he win the day. 180

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Declan

If I have the math correct, right now the first 7k is tax free, if he gets elected and actually does increase the tax free amount then that would entail that there will be a shortfall in accounts recievable of 8k per person. Obviously depending on where he plans on drawing the line for who is entitled to that windfall. My bet is that he is well aware that the carbon tax will hit the lower tier tax payers hardest, and is simply swapping the income tax for the CT and justifying with people getting more control over what they pay on the consumer side.

As for him saying that, no he did not. I dont expect to see that in the papers until after the election, should he win the day.

Meaning no disrepsect, but I don't think your math is right. First, the cut off is currently 12K not 7K. Second, the different would not be 3K. It would be 15% of 3K (the first income tax bracket is 15%). That comes to $450 per taxpayer.

It is possible I have it wrong too. I am playing Oxygen Not Included while writing this. 181

[BeepKillBeep]

The articles says $292 per Canadian. I'm not sure how they computed that. 182

[Declan]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

Meaning no disrepsect, but I don't think your math is right. First, the cut off is currently 12K not 7K. Second, the different would not be 3K. It would be 15% of 3K (the first income tax bracket is 15%). That comes to $450 per taxpayer.

It is possible I have it wrong too. I am playing Oxygen Not Included while writing this.

Thanks for the correction Beep 183

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep

Meaning no disrepsect, but I don't think your math is right. First, the cut off is currently 12K not 7K. Second, the different would not be 3K. It would be 15% of 3K (the first income tax bracket is 15%). That comes to $450 per taxpayer.

That's exactly the calculation I was about to post. 184

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Declan

Thanks for the correction Beep

My pleasure. To answer your question, I don't think we'll see another carbon tax like the one that was just rolled out. It was poorly understood by the average Canadian. There may be some other kind of carbon pricing put out there, but even that I don't think so. The carbon tax was obviously not popular. Taxes rarely are, and I think doing two carbon taxes in back to back terms would doom the Liberals in the next election. 185

[Euphonious Polemic]

Yep. Basic personal amount for federal taxes is currently $11,809. It goes up a bit every year. 2017 it was $11,635. 186

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Declan

As for him saying that, no he did not. I dont expect to see that in the papers until after the election, should he win the day.

It was just your opinion then. OK.

Sort of like if I said that Scheer was going to pay for his proposed cut on the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 13.5% by cutting services for mental health and opiod overdoses. Just a wild guess based on..... nothing.

(Note that I really do not believe Scheer would do any such thing - this is merely a hypothetical for argument's sake) 187

[Acierocolotl]

I've been appreciating the generally apolitical points of view, even if I haven't been very involved in the conversation of late. I've been feeling very... whelmed with my options at the leadership level, so I'm likely going to just ignore most everything and just vote for my MP.

That said, I want to apologize for the sudden fork in the conversation. I want to revisit something we were discussing much earlier, and that's an implementation of proportional voting. What I felt was missing was a way of getting that local feeling, of voting in an MP that represented individual, localized areas that properly represented that riding. Of, as somebody else wrote, avoiding the feeling of MPs simply being appointed. And then the solution came to me that I want to experiment with.

To get that local feeling, we keep the ridings. Parties submit a list of candidates, one per riding, just as they do now, with funding limits per riding as before. The vote, however, is proportional. If a party gets 38% of the votes, they get 38% of the MPs. Just as we expect.

The twist is how those 38% are chosen: they're chosen from the top 38% of the ridings where that party did best, as measured by vote percentage in that riding.

There's two wrinkles, of course. The first is that it makes it possible for multiple parties to produce MPs from the same riding. (Green, NDP and Liberals can do well in poor urban ridings for instance). It's also theoretically possible for a riding to produce no MPs whatsoever.

I'm planning on building a Canadian election simulator to test this out to see how pronounced this effect could be. To make the simulator as accurate as possible, I'd deeply appreciate getting projected polling percentages and eligible voter counts on a per riding basis. Any idea where I might find this data?

Thanks in advance. 188

[Northern Piper]

If I'm following you correctly, that sounds similar to my proposal that n
Post 24?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...8&postcount=24 189

[BeepKillBeep]

Originally Posted by Acierocolotl

I've been appreciating the generally apolitical points of view, even if I haven't been very involved in the conversation of late. I've been feeling very... whelmed with my options at the leadership level, so I'm likely going to just ignore most everything and just vote for my MP.

That said, I want to apologize for the sudden fork in the conversation. I want to revisit something we were discussing much earlier, and that's an implementation of proportional voting. What I felt was missing was a way of getting that local feeling, of voting in an MP that represented individual, localized areas that properly represented that riding. Of, as somebody else wrote, avoiding the feeling of MPs simply being appointed. And then the solution came to me that I want to experiment with.

To get that local feeling, we keep the ridings. Parties submit a list of candidates, one per riding, just as they do now, with funding limits per riding as before. The vote, however, is proportional. If a party gets 38% of the votes, they get 38% of the MPs. Just as we expect.

The twist is how those 38% are chosen: they're chosen from the top 38% of the ridings where that party did best, as measured by vote percentage in that riding.

There's two wrinkles, of course. The first is that it makes it possible for multiple parties to produce MPs from the same riding. (Green, NDP and Liberals can do well in poor urban ridings for instance). It's also theoretically possible for a riding to produce no MPs whatsoever.

I'm planning on building a Canadian election simulator to test this out to see how pronounced this effect could be. To make the simulator as accurate as possible, I'd deeply appreciate getting projected polling percentages and eligible voter counts on a per riding basis. Any idea where I might find this data?

Thanks in advance.

You can get polling data or projections at 338canada.com.

http://338canada.com/ 190

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by Acierocolotl

I've been appreciating the generally apolitical points of view, even if I haven't been very involved in the conversation of late. I've been feeling very... whelmed with my options at the leadership level, so I'm likely going to just ignore most everything and just vote for my MP.

That said, I want to apologize for the sudden fork in the conversation. I want to revisit something we were discussing much earlier, and that's an implementation of proportional voting. What I felt was missing was a way of getting that local feeling, of voting in an MP that represented individual, localized areas that properly represented that riding. Of, as somebody else wrote, avoiding the feeling of MPs simply being appointed. And then the solution came to me that I want to experiment with.

To get that local feeling, we keep the ridings. Parties submit a list of candidates, one per riding, just as they do now, with funding limits per riding as before. The vote, however, is proportional. If a party gets 38% of the votes, they get 38% of the MPs. Just as we expect.

The twist is how those 38% are chosen: they're chosen from the top 38% of the ridings where that party did best, as measured by vote percentage in that riding.

There's two wrinkles, of course. The first is that it makes it possible for multiple parties to produce MPs from the same riding. (Green, NDP and Liberals can do well in poor urban ridings for instance). It's also theoretically possible for a riding to produce no MPs whatsoever.

I'm planning on building a Canadian election simulator to test this out to see how pronounced this effect could be. To make the simulator as accurate as possible, I'd deeply appreciate getting projected polling percentages and eligible voter counts on a per riding basis. Any idea where I might find this data?

Thanks in advance.

Do keep in mind that people would vote differently than they do now if this system were in place, while current polling tells you about how people vote with FPTP in place. I'm not sure how big the difference would be, but it would certainly have some impact. 191

[CarnalK]

Looking for polling data in every riding sounds rather hopeless. You'd be better off applying your model to past elections. 192

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I think we do need to have a referendum on this, not only because it's clear that the parties will vote for what they think will benefit them, first, rather than what's best for the country overall, but because the citizens overall might not like the particular version of electoral reform that they've decided to use.

The electoral system change currently being proposed in Quebec, which is a mixed member proportional system, was originally supposed to be put into place without a referendum, given that three of the four parties with seats in the National Assembly (including the one currently forming government) got together before the last election to agree on it. The Liberals were the only party opposed, but even they seem to have softened their tone since then. However, it seems like a referendum will be held on it after all (concurrently with the next election in 2022), since there was some opposition from the government caucus and even the chief electoral officer said somewhat controversially that such a reform would require years to put in place. At least it seems that this referendum will be held using 50% + 1 vote as threshold, and not 60% in favour with a majority in 60% of the ridings as with the 2005 BC referendum.

I must say that I don't think parties voting for what they think will benefit them is a very major objection to electoral reform, since almost by definition the governing party, which is the one that could put in place a reform, will tend to favour the current system that put it in power. Electoral reform is more likely to happen during times of minority government, which also forces the reform to be a multiparty consensus.

Of course, electoral reform at the federal level is much more difficult than at the provincial level, since there are issues of federalism to consider. I would strongly oppose a pure proportional system at the federal level, for example, and I expect most Canadians would as well. 193

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Horatius

And that one word right there sums up why I've abandoned the modern Conservatives parties. Take a look at this thread. We've got a lot of right-leaning people for whom the entire election seem to turn on Trudeau, and who are making only ad hominem attacks against both him and the people who may be voting for him. No discussion of policy, no context, nothing at all of substance.

I have to sincerely apologize for this. I had no idea on how it would affect people and how hurtful my words could be. I will en-devour to do better in the future and live up to Canadian's expectations. If I have any excuse it was the lack of privilege when I was growing up. I had no access to world class universities to teach me the niceties of polite conversation or how to properly fade black shoe polish into a nappy wig. I was left to my own devices and ended up watching TV, for the most part. Shows like the Fifth Estate, W5, 60 Minutes, Nova, etc,. They could only teach me so much and for their failure, I ask forgiveness.

I note that the person who originated the picture is now in the spotlight for their 'motivations'. Yes, their dastardly motivation in outing such a beloved Canadian figure. It's obviously his fault that Trudeau is in this pickle. I'm still waiting on Trudeau's motivation on prancing around in blackface.

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Who will take climate change seriously and propose concrete actions to reduce our Greenhouse gas emissions. I'm talking about an actual plan, and actual steps to be taken that make sense. Anyone with science deniers in their party is not likely to get my vote.

165billion of barrels proven reserves in the oil sands. https://www.alberta.ca/oil-sands-fac...tatistics.aspx
Current oil price is $63/bbl. Call it $50 and that is $8.2T USD worth of assets not being fully utilized before it become obsolete.

- Who will take the federal debt seriously. At the very least, who will keep the debt-GDP ratio constant or diminishing?

See above

It will be increasingly important to diversify both our economy

See above. Money can help pay for peanuts and diversification.

The alternative is that these buggers get the money and use it to keep subjugating their people.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/our-al...ple-this-month (from 2017) 194

[BeepKillBeep]

Scheer skipped the Climate Strike in Montreal. Thunberg criticizes Trudeau, Trudeau does not throw an angry tirade on Twitter. Trudeau, Singh, May were all at a climate protest. Bernier calls Thunberg "mentally unstable". Wow. Frak Bernier and the PPC. What a basket of deplorables. I mean I'm not supportive of the direction the CPoC has taken, but they're still a normative party (despite drifting too far to the right), but the PPC. Just wow. I find it so hard to believe there are even 4%ish Canadians who believe this crap.

So far, the campaign ads I've seen have been negative from the CPoC "Trudeau. He's not as advertised." and positive from the Liberals "Choose Forward". I've not seen any ads from the Green or NDP. I'm not saying there aren't any negative Liberals ads or positive CPoC ads, just that I've not seen them. I don't watch a lot of TV so it might not be surprising that I won't have seen too many ads. Have others been seeing a lot of ads? Generally negative (boo) or positive (yay!)?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...tion-1.5299674
https://election.ctvnews.ca/trudeau-...aign-1.4612988 195

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Uzi

I have to sincerely apologize for this. I had no idea on how it would affect people and how hurtful my words could be. I will en-devour to do better in the future and live up to Canadian's expectations. If I have any excuse it was the lack of privilege when I was growing up. I had no access to world class universities to teach me the niceties of polite conversation or how to properly fade black shoe polish into a nappy wig. I was left to my own devices and ended up watching TV, for the most part. Shows like the Fifth Estate, W5, 60 Minutes, Nova, etc,. They could only teach me so much and for their failure, I ask forgiveness.

I note that the person who originated the picture is now in the spotlight for their 'motivations'. Yes, their dastardly motivation in outing such a beloved Canadian figure. It's obviously his fault that Trudeau is in this pickle. I'm still waiting on Trudeau's motivation on prancing around in blackface.

And here it is again, you saying stupid crap about Trudeau that is clearly motivated by nothing more than personal animosity, and then following it up with this howler:

165billion of barrels proven reserves in the oil sands. https://www.alberta.ca/oil-sands-fac...tatistics.aspx
Current oil price is $63/bbl. Call it $50 and that is $8.2T USD worth of assets not being fully utilized before it become obsolete.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1CN0FD


Oil sands are probably the most expensive source of oil there is, and even Albertans acknowledge that a price of $60 per barrel is the bare minimum needed to break even.

Note, that's "Break even", NOT "make a profit". At your suggested $50 price point, we'd lose $10 for every barrel we sell, turning your "$8.2T USD worth of assets" into a huge economic disaster.

I guess you really are a Trump fan after all, if you think that's a good business plan. 196

[Euphonious Polemic]

It's not surprising that Conservative fans know very little about the economics of the Canadian oil patch.

I know a lot of folks in Alberta who seem strangely positive that if you put Bitumen in one end of a pipeline, it comes out the other end as sweet, light crude. Or even refined gasoline!

I mean, I read crap all the time about how British Columbians won't be able to drive their cars if more Alberta bitumen is not sent through the pipeline.

You'd think that people who live in a province dependent on petroleum resources would at least know a little bit about the industry. 197

[borschevsky]

Not a fan of the Conservative mailer we got this week. One side is a normal-looking Conservative ad, and the other is made up to look like an NDP mailer, with lines about “higher taxes” etc. Elections are so depressing. 198

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Uzi

165billion of barrels proven reserves in the oil sands....
Current oil price is $63/bbl. Call it $50 and that is $8.2T USD worth of assets not being fully utilized

Assume you can extract $10 on a barrel and that 80% of the reserves are really accessible and that it would take 50 years to exploit.

26 billion a year. That’s about 7% of the Alberta GDP which is nothing to laugh at. Except 50 years worth of exploitation at Alberta’s extraction rate of 1 billion barrels is only a third. So really it seems like 10 billion a year.

We should really apply the externalities of carbon but let’s leave that aside. 199

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

It's not surprising that Conservative fans know very little about the economics of the Canadian oil patch.

You'd think that people who live in a province dependent on petroleum resources would at least know a little bit about the industry.

Profit is one portion of economic activity. 150,000 people directly involved in that production, paying taxes, supporting services, etc. A large portion of that activity directly in Canada.

https://www.ogj.com/drilling-product...duction-growth

Production is becoming more efficient. No worries. Keep sending your money to prop up theocrats and dictators rather than supporting your fellow Canadians. 200