Should the winner of the popular vote be Canada’s Prime Minister?

[Gorsnak]

@Bryan_Ekers

He has nothing better to do. It’s Operation Overbored.

Yeah, pity the poor observer of UK politics these days. Nothing whatsoever of interest going on.

[kaylasdad99]

Why would Hillary Clinton even WANT to be the Prime Minister of Canada?

Okay, off to read the thread…

[Northern_Piper]

She would have to get naturalised to get into the Commons or the Senate.

Unless she just became party leader and PM, but didn’t hold a seat in the Commons or Senate.

[penultima_thule]

@CarnalK

every country should make the popular vote winner be the executive.

Psephologist, heal thyself.

Coming from a jurisdiction where the head of executive government doesn’t need to receive a majority of votes in their own electorate, or lead a party that wins the majority of votes cast or winning a majority seats in parliament or all three for that matter, the US fixation on the sanctity of the popular vote is quite frankly unbecoming.

It’s not as if the US has a track record of popularly electing competent executives.

[Saint_Cad]

Plus this discussion leaves out that Trump campaigned brilliantly and Clinton campaigned horribly given the rules of the election. Trump is on record that he would have emphasized other states if his goal were to win the popular votes and not EC votes. Meanwhile Clinton campaigned for easy votes in states that were already in her camp.

The analogy is like saying that a poker player behind in a hand playing pot odds wins unfairly if he sucks out on the river. No he played the game correctly and won.

[CarnalK]

@penultima_thule

Psephologist, heal thyself.

Coming from a jurisdiction where the head of executive government doesn’t need to receive a majority of votes in their own electorate, or lead a party that wins the majority of votes cast or winning a majority seats in parliament or all three for that matter, the US fixation on the sanctity of the popular vote is quite frankly unbecoming.

It’s not as if the US has a track record of popularly electing competent executives.

You sliced out a part of my quote to make it appear I was declaring something which is quite uncool, even in whatever awesome country you live in.

[penultima_thule]

On re-reading your post #21 I realise that I missed the nuance.
Apologies.

[Hari_Seldon]

@Wrenching_Spanners

There aren’t a huge number of Canadians on this board, but there’s a fair few – probably enough for an effective survey sample. Did any of the Canadians who voted in this election consider the merits and platforms of the people running to be their MP, and then considered the merits and platforms of the party leaders, and then chose an MP from a different party than your preferred party leader?

A fair question and here is my answer. I voted for a candidate whom I have met and liked. But I would have voted for him anyway since I wanted Trudeau to continue as PM. I would have happy enough to vote NDP, but I know they had no chance of winning. Although I am sympathetic with most of the aims of the Greens, I could not possibly vote for a party whose leaders believes that Israel should not occupy any land in Palestine, i.e. that Israel should not exist. As for the Conservatives they seem to be climate change deniers and that is simply unacceptable. They just want to burn as much oil as possible, as quickly as possible.

What I would like to see is not proportional representation but instant runoff or preference voting. It is totally predictable that under such a system, the number of ballots with the Libs and NDP 1 and 2, in either order, would approach 50% and I completely content with a coalition of the two parties.