Considering the first hijack was perpetrated by the OP’er in his 2nd post, I’m not sure it’s ‘continuation’ is entirely my fault, but…
far be it for me to misbehave in the Pit…
pffft
z
Continued here: Quebec City, or: Canadians Duke It Out
Kind of sounds like… the United States of America. Or so ol’ Al Gore would think.
“Democracy” does not mean “the straight majority of votes always gets whatever it wants,” and you would be a damned fool to think such a system would work. Unfortunately, a form of representative democracy is a must in any country of significant size.
Which is why part of the federal NDP renewal process (of which I am a part) is studying possibilities for reforming the Canadian representative process so that the results are more reflective of public opinion than the current system. (I mean, really now, you can’t get much worse than 25% of the electorate electing 75% of the MPs.)
This would appear to suggest that the Liberals got 25% of the vote, which of course is false, and that they got 75% of the seats, which of course is also false.
In the November 27, 2000 general election for the House of Commons, the total eligible electorate was 21 243 473, total number of ballots cast was 12 997 185 and the Liberal Party received 5 252 031 of those votes. However, they won 172 of the 301 seats.
That’s good for only 40,8% of ballots cast and 24,7% of the eligible vote, with which they won 57% of the seats in the House. So on checking, you’re right, the 75% figure is inaccurate, although the other figures are correct. Even so, 60% of the seats with 40% of the ballots is kind of skewed, to my eyes.
Moreover, to put it another way, the NDP received 1 093 868 of the votes, but 13 seats in the House; that is, 20,8% as many votes as the Liberals got, but 7,5% as many seats. So a vote for a New Democrat was, nationally speaking, worth less than half as much in determining the makeup of Parliament as a vote for a Liberal.
Source: Summary of the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 37th General Election Held on November 20th, 2000, available here, in PDF format ; except for party standings in the House of Commons, which are from the Parliamentary Internet.
And the foregoing is not a hijack?
Or are hijacks only defined as such when they differ from the OP’s opinion?
z