At the end of the day any coalition will depend on the number of seats. But, I could see the Liberals preferring a Red-Green coalition out of fear, if the NDP end up north of 20% at election day. It would be one hellofa risky power-move as it would be relying on Singh’s promise to never form a coalition with the Tories. Of course this scenario is all imaginary as the election isn’t over yet and the arithmetic will probably force a Lib-NDP deal.
Well, there was over 4.5 million early votes and much of that before the NDP was moved up much. We’ll see. I’m still expecting a Liberal win.
Scratch that. I just don’t think the math would ever work.
That allows for the issue of local representation, but I am curious as to what problem is really being solved now. The percentage of seats held by various parties can still be very different from the percentage of the vote they get.
The biggest problem Canada has in terms of how Parliament works is that the Senate is unelected. It’s preposterous, to be honest.
If you want a mixed system, how about this; the House remains the way it is. The Senate, however, is completely re-elected based on proportional representation.
Fuuuuck that. The absolute best thing about the Senate is that it’s not elected. It can be sober second thought/patronage payoff place without the legitimacy of being elected. Start electing Senators and we’re halfway to the shit show that is the American Bicameral system.
So there was talk–or at least a teasing hint–that Trudeau may try to form a coalition government if he doesn’t win. Or really, more of Scheer reminding people of our recent “tradition” of letting the winner of the election get the first crack at forming the government.
So is it scare-mongering or do you think Trudeau would do that? I’ve been avoiding any non-news media so I haven’t got a feel for exactly how scare-mongery this campaign has been.
You know I was toying around with that idea too.
Integrating the two houses would be as good as abolishing the Upper House (my choice), it would fulfill the old Reform Triple-E promise (equal, elected, effective), if you do it with the Senate provincial breakdown then it might be done without opening the constitution, if you do it as an offset to our FPTP it would finally make our government proportionately representative, and finally since the seats would still be determined by the party member roll the positions would keep being patronage appointments (not angering the parties nor the Senators).
It would check a lot of boxes but to get such a project done we would need a far-sighted sitting PM, one on the scale of MacDonald, or PET.
Why wouldn’t he? As the sitting Prime Minister he would have the first chance at forming government, so if there’s a reasonable deal available with the NDP I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen.
It’s another one of those situations where a bunch of votes move in one direction, and the result is the government moves in the other direction. A net migration of votes to the right (Liberal -> Conservative) results in the government moving left (Liberal -> Liberal+NDP). Oversimplifying, I know.
With MMP it won’t be too different. There are other options if you want a more PR system.
To repeat, the idea is that no matter how great the statistical errors accumulate with the first FPTP vote (lets say the Greens come in 2nd place in all ridings and win 0 seats despite having a larger voting share than any other party) the second PR system will offset that by allocating the Green party with its share of the PR vote. Not any different from how New Zealand, Germany, or Scotland votes for their representatives.
Our system is a bit different then the Americans. If important bills don’t get passed, the writ is dropped and we win a (not)free election.
Well, I guess we could let Scheer try to form government if he won more seats in a minority situation. It might actually prevent a lot of whining and whinging. Scheer has directly said that whoever gets the most seats will (or should) form government. OK then.
Hypothetical results: (which are not totally insane guesses)
Con: 134
Lib: 130
BQ: 35
NDP: 35
Green: 4
So… go ahead and invite Scheer to form government. Go for it. Oh wait, you only have 134 seats. You can’t actually pass any legislation. Can’t even pass a budget. Oh dear, you cannot actually govern. Guess that’s not working out.
He’ll need to get 170 seats to agree to form a coalition.
Singh has directly said "We are not going to support a Conservative government. They are out of the plan.
May is never, ever going to support a Conservative government, despite lies to the contrary going about. Well, maybe they will if Scheer adopts her entire climate change platform. (rolls about on floor laughing)
So the Bloc. Will they support a Conservative government? Well Blanchet on Sunday said he has no interest in forming a coalition with anyone. But perhaps he could be persuaded, if the Conservatives help the Bloc with their plan to break up Canada. So that could be Scheer’s ticket. Hope that between him and the Bloc, they get 170 or more seats. Then work with the Bloc and help them destroy the country so he can run the country.
Eh? (Responding to the bolded portion]
The Constitution says Parliament is composed of two separate houses.
The Constitution says the Senators are appointed, not elected.
The Constitution sets the number of Senators, with unequal allocation of Senate seats.
How do you think you can change all that without opening the Constitution?
And how can a Prime Minister achieve this all by him/herself, without buy-in from the Provinces?
Mabe you should Google “Stephen Harper”. You’re in for a surprise!
-
Not a Constitutional scholar. My opinions here are clearly not authoritative, lets keep that in mind.
-
I’m not saying I can make these changes, just that appointing via PR would not need to break the Constitution as there are already surprisingly few requirements to be appointed. I also mentioned other Constitutional problems to the Senate like a particular provincial composition that needs to be maintained.
-
I’m fully confident that there are plenty other stumbling blocks but it is quite silly to view our system of governance as set in stone. If full integration of our houses is impossible without opening up the Constitution it would shock noone. What would floor me is that the HoC and Senate procedure is completely ossified as to prevent any democratic reform.
I have no idea how anyone can make all of these changes without provincial approval. Even MacDonald and PET needed provincial support.
Fair enough. 
Acrtually, in the Senate Reform case, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot implement Senate elections, even just advisory like in Alberta, because that would be an indirect constitutional amendment, changing the constitutional requirement for appointment.
In the Senate Reform case, the Supreme Court held that the Senate cannot be eliminated without unanimous consent of the Provinces. Rolling it into the Commons might run afoul of that holding? Dunno.
Apologies for misunderstanding your point. Sounded to me like the Green Lantern presidential theory. But my basic point is that it’s not just the PM that needs to have vision. Several of the Premiers in 1981 distinguished themselves for their commitment and vision for constitutional reform. Since we are a federation, plans for constitutional change can’t just be focused on the PM, as if the PM controls the process.
Good point, but I would say:
- Scheer is not Harper
- The electoral math will likely be quite different. Harper’s first minority was quite unusual in that either the NDP OR the Bloc OR the Liberals could vote with the Conservatives at any time to prop up the government. So there was no formal coalition required or declared.
No, Sheer is no Harper. (never thought I’d use that phrase)
But some things hold. Despite not being legally true, Sheer is speaking what most Canadians probably feel. The biggest winner should get to try and form the government. Maybe it will fail but maybe they can pass some stuff. I’m sure there’s plenty of bones they could throw the Liberals or the Bloq to get some votes to go their way.
If the Conservatives win the most seats, I agree, Scheer should be given the oportunity to try and form the government.
But don’t let him claim to be PM while he tries to get 170 MP’s to commit to that.
Are you trying to give me an aneurysm? How is that not a complete disavowal of your post I was responding to?
Ok.
Last election Nanos was the closest so they’re the one to watch this time around; here’s their prediction 2 days before the polls: Liberals 32.6, Conservatives 30.3, NDP 18.4, Greens 9.3, BQ 7.1, PPC 1.9