Who posted this? Because this is his central thesis:
…which is exactly what lots of people have been trying to point out for years now. He posts this as some great revelation he’s had, that no one has ever considered, but to me, it all falls into the “Duh, weren’t you paying attention?” category.
And that’s the real problem he still misses. The real problem isn’t “Power Point Pierre”, it’s the people who don’t realize that this isn’t enough.
The Conservatives and Liberals being neck-and-neck will only result in a Liberal win in seat count. This is just due to our first-past-the-post system where a lot of Conservative votes are wasted in EXTREMELY safe seats out west (where voting percentages can pull 70% to the Conservatives or more).
In our FPTP system any votes for the losing party doesn’t matter AND any extra votes for the winning party doesn’t matter either. A party takes the same seat if it wins by one vote or get 90% of the vote share. All that extra support is meaningless towards political realty
Yes …one reason Trudeau dodged voting reform is he would have lost the last election if FPTP was changed out.
He lost a lot of support when he binned reform.
I did not put in the Reddit link to the post as he thinks it will be nuked.
I prefer Australia’s system with mandatory voting and preferential voting.
I’d take any version of pr right about now (there are many to chose from around the world).
Any of those options are more accurate (limits rounding errors) then fptp, and I trust the work of previous commissions to put forth a fair system that more closely ties the public’s voting power to Canadian voters intentions, and eventually the governing results.
I was shouting this 5 years ago. When Trudeau announced CERB, the Conservative Finance Critic was none other than PP. His response was that it was a stupid idea. A reporter asked him what Trudeau should do instead and he replied that it wasn’t his job to give the government ideas.
I always thought his job was to make Canada and Canadians lives better, PP doesn’t agree with that.
I’ve seen people bitch that Ford always seems to have an American flag behind him during those interviews. It strikes me as being so preposterously obvious why he does that, that you have to be a bit of a dumbass to not know; it’s a subtle move to impress upon American viewers that Ford is fighting Trump but not the American people.
The current 338canada projections:
CPC: 39% vote, 156 seats
Liberal: 33% vote, 143 seats
NDP: 14% vote, 14 seats
BQ: 7% vote (27% in QC) 28 seats
Green: 4% vote, 2 seats
It doesn’t add up to 338 due to rounding but you see the amazing effect of FPTP. The Liberals are substantially behind in popular vote but could actually win - there’s a lot of probability for the seat count to be different. They could lose by 4-5 points in popular vote and actually win a majority. (They lost the last two elections by popular vote but won a minority anyway.) The NDP will be crushed, and the BQ’s seat count is even out of proportion if you just look at the QC vote.
The Liberals were practically tied with the NDP on New Years Day. Trudeau resigned on January 5, and since then, the Liberals have soared.
God, the whole pandemic response by some people drove me nuts. People were losing jobs all over the place through no fault of their own, but we still had idiots whining that CERB would encourage people to be lazy shits who wouldn’t ever work again.
As I said at the time - what was the point of becoming the richest society in history if we couldn’t use some of that wealth to support our people during a once in a hundred years emergency?
Exactly. And the inflation in the ensuing years was a result of that spending (by govts across the world, not just ours), and it was a price worth paying to have avoided a far greater hardships.
The wage and rent subsidies for businesses meant that I didn’t have have to lay off a single employee, despite a 30% drop in revenue and a $25,000/month office that remained vacant for 4 years until we got out of our lease.
It adds up to 343, which will be the size of the House in the next Parliament. Redistribution takes effect.
A different factor that needs to be considered is that the number of seats per province is fixed. National popular vote is irrelevant, because even if one party racks up a huge lead in a particular province, it doesn’t matter whether the election is PR or FPTP. The voters of that province won’t get more seats than allocated to them. It’s misleading to focus on the national popular vote for that reason.
Ah, I didn’t know they’d added five seats.
The serious front runner for pr was MMP which keeps local representatives.
ETA: changed to CBC link
Yes but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. If one party racks up a large vote percentage in one province, the party can’t use that to change the national distribution of seats. So if the Conservatives get 80% in Alberta, that skews the national popular vote, but doesn’t give them more seats than the province has, regardless of FPTP, MMR, or PR.
Well, obviously though, popular vote differs a lot between the two systems; the difference between PR and FPTP makes a HUGE difference. In Alberta, the CPC is projected to get 57% of the vote, but win 35 of 37 seats, under FPTP. If it was total PR, the CPC would win 21 seats, not 35.
In the four Atlantic provinces the Liberals lead in populate vote 44-35 - but are projected to win 25 of 32 seats.
PR versus FPTP can make a big, big difference.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but MMP has local and regional votes. You local vote is in fptp and they become your local representative, the regional vote offsets the error multiplication inherent in this local fptp/vote by proportionally portioning out the regional representation to align both to the total regional vote share.
Whether these votes transfer from Alberta to Ontario doesn’t really matter now (maybe in a small statistical manner, but not in any real terms). The provinces still keep that wonky seat proportion as set by the constitution HOWEVER this reflects how the province votes by pr (while still keeping local reps). I see no down side.
Wait a minute I think I understand now. If, say, Alberta keeps the current voting pattern, any pr system will still reflect its overwhelming CPC nature.
Thus pr has not effectively solved or hindered any CPC over representation that is inherent to the current fptp system. At least not nationally. The regional offset vote is limited to just the provincial error accumulation. Okay. Makes sense.
The CPC party is roughly correctly represented under FPTP, nationally - which is what matters, really (or they were the last few times) but OVER represented in Alberta, but that doesn’t matter, because Parliament doesn’t work that way.
In 2021, the national vote hit the CPC seat share fairly closely. The Liberal Party was OVER-represented nationally, winning 33 percent of the vote - less than the CPC - but 46 percent of seats. The underrepresented party was the NDP, with 16 percent of the vote but 7 percent of the seats.
The 2019 election was pretty much the same. Again, the CPC actually had more votes than the Liberals, but nationally it roughly was the same as their seat share. The Liberals were substantially overrepresented, the NDP was underrepresented.
If you did PR within the boundaries of provinces, the CPC would have lost seats in Alberta, but would have picked them up elsewhere to end up with pretty much the same result. The Liberals would have lot a huge number of seats, mostly in Ontario. The NDP would have doubled their seats.
If you wanna know why the Liberals didn’t fulfill their promise to go with PR, here ya go.
That’s it. That’s what I’ve been trying (poorly) to express. Thank you.
It’s why no matter what the seat allocation by the voting method, it will not be appropriate to compare the national vote to the national seat distribution, because seats are distributed by province, not by the country as a whole.
My understanding is that the German system has “top-up” seats, that are added to make the total party seat counts exactly match the vote percentage. But I don’t see how we could do that, because the seats are set by the constitutional formula.