Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result
Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result
You're viewing a single thread.
What I see is 5k NDP and Greens voters who would rather see a conservative MP having the seat than make sure it's someone fairly progressive in place.
Oh and enough people that voted for fake independents to make a point in favor of electoral reform to make a party that has always been against electoral reform take the seat.
It's not a fucking proportional system, vote strategically you idiots!
What I see is a need for Ranked Choice Voting, but the Liberals don't want to do that because they benefit from the current quasi-duopoly. But it is a necessary evolution
Edit: I think its pretty clear they benefit. Lotta would-be NDP voters who happen to fall into this dilemma of not wanting a Conservative government so they hold their nose and vote Liberal just until the next "less-pivotal" election that just never comes
Just a note, Liberals wanted a ranked system, STV, but the NDP and CPC outvoted them on the ER committee and effectivly killed it.
Provincially or Federally?
Federally. STV has been a long standing LPC policy (I should know, I held a policy position for the LPC for more than 6 years). It was their preferred choice during the ER committee, but the NDP and CPC banded together to kill it reccomending vague PR and a referendum instead.
So why are we still stuck with FPTP?
Well the short answer is politics.
The long answer is that when we had the opportunity to make a change, during the ERRE committee time period Trudeau was extremely concerned with presenting himself not just as a Harper alternative (IE a "Not Harper PM") but as fundamentally different from him. Harper had tight, party whipped votes and was known for being very singular in purpose, he got done what he set out to do like it or not (And I did not). Harper did not collaborate he pushed everyone around. On the other hand, despite having a majority government Trudeau set out to govern more with consensus and collaboration, even going so far as to, under some pressure, give up majority control on the ERRE committee at the request of the NDP, making the committee proportional (this decision proved to be fatal to ER).
It was in that committee where all parties essentially refused to budge on their positions and would not negotiate with the LPC to pass recommendations that the LPC could get past both the house (in a free vote) and the senate (which was much more conservative in 2016). The NDP wanted PR so bad, and STV/Ranked Ballots so little, that they sided with the CPC who wanted to kill the entire thing with referendums instead of working with the LPC to get some change through. The result was recommendation that absolutely had no chance of passing the house, and if implemented no chance of passing the senate, and even if passed through both would not have resulted in reform before the next election as a referendum killed that idea entirely.
So rather than act like Harper would have, and use his majority to push through STV over the objections of the other parties, Trudeau chose to drop it. Instead focusing efforts on things he could pass, like the Elections Modernization Act of 2018 and the removal of senators from caucus.
Where does that leave us? What's the path forward?
Also, isn't it possible Trudeau knew that leaving things open to consensus would doom the effort and did so as a matter of RealPolitik? It just seems so convenient that the blame could be diffused in that way when, at the time, they held all the cards...
I don't know that there is a path forward in the near term, at least Trudeau won't revisit it, the CPC love FPTP, and the NDP won't take anything less than PR. This is a political impasse.
Is it possible Trudeau masterminded the failure of ER on purpose? I guess anything is possible, but that's too conspiratorial to me, adding unnecessary complexity when a much logistically simpler, albeit narratively longer and less satisfying story played out right in front of us.
Could Trudeau have forced through STV with his majority? Yes of course but that ran counter to his personal brand, the optimism of his 2015 campaign and his early consensus approach to government.
In any case, the truth of what happened doesn't matter much anymore because the "Trudeau lies" narrative is simple, easily repeated, and has rooted itself in popular social media discourse as practically a meme.
I was one of those strategic voters and I was promised by the Liberals that they were going to have the "last election under first past the post". That didn't happen so I decided I am done being dragged into supporting a party that constantly fails to deliver the things I believe in. What I don't understand is seeing how the Liberals are getting demolished at the polls, why isn't the new strategic vote to go NDP to stop the Conservatives? They aren't that far behind the Liberals. 🤷
Whats happening with Pharmacare and Dentacare btw haha? Are those still chugging along?
Pharmacare should be in place by April 2025, health minister says and Canada's dental care plan started almost 2 months ago..
Do try to keep up to date.
Pretty much anything would be better than what we have, in the meantime we need to vote strategically or we end up with the Conservatives which just makes things even worse.
The problem is they're just going to say that every election without feeling the need to change their position and intentions towards it forever. People and institutions won't change if they have every incentive to not change and no disincentives to the status quo.
It sucks but this is going to be an even bigger issue with the rise of the far-right populism and extremism and all the Liberals care about is playing the same stupid games that allow Conservative governments to stochastically form majority governments with less than a majority of the populations consent
No, you don't get to blame third party when this riding was overwhelmingly Liberal for 30 years. Plus, the margin of victory was so small that they didn't even need strategic voters to win it themselves.
This was a de facto referendum on Trudeau himself, and he would be wise to take heed of this warning.
Cut your nose to spite your face
You're angry at Trudeau? Fine. Get PP in power and see how things go for you, I'm sure the majority of people who think like you are the ones who will suffer the most under a conservative government. You do you, I'm a white man with a good job that owns a house and I'm still trying to improve things for those who aren't as privileged instead of thinking about myself and voting for lower taxes and less services for those in needs, maybe you should do the same.
Hah, I don't care about Trudeau (and certainly don't want to sleep with him like some of the more vocal fans), and lose either way as an NDP supporter. The entitlement to other parties' votes is laughable. You're bothered by the vote splitting? Perhaps electoral reform would help with that (I would've even accepted the ranked choice system that the Liberals proposed back in 2015, but even that didn't materialize).
The NDP will only have a real shot at power if the Liberals crash and burn, similar to the provincial NDP (but fuck Andrea Horwath for wasting her party's chance).
As for dealing with a conservative PM, well, I'll be fine, but he's still going to drag the country backward on climate policy. I hope y'all are rich enough to handle the rising costs of climate change (which will continue to rise even if Poilievre axes the carbon tax in total denial)
It's not only about climate change though and it's not only about you being fine. People thought the same way you do and got Trump elected and now abortion is getting banned all over the USA, but hey, at least some progressives can say they didn't vote for Hillary out of principle?
You aren't comparing Poilievre to Trump are you? Despite my misgivings with Milhouse, he is a regular political opportunist (though like Doug Ford, that can still cause problems for people). Swinging to the opposite extreme and making him sound like the antichrist erodes any chance of honest discussion we have with more moderate fiscal conservatives (the social conservative crazies that want to ban abortion will live in their own world no matter what).
You have a fair point about people displaying their privilege when saying they can tolerate a lost election. I know others don't have that luxury, but I'm not saying ignore everything, or don't vote. The climate is a wedge issue that affects everybody world wide, regardless of their political affiliation (or lack of), which is why I emphasized it.
This discussion started because of a comment supporting strategic voting, and extrapolated consequences and value judgments from there. It's an issue with the electoral system that requires electoral reform.
He might not ban abortion, but he already said he's ready to use article 33 to bypass the supreme Court on prison terms for violent crimes and when he starts feeling pressure from the social conservatives in his party and he's facing the possibility that they'll jump ship, you can be sure social issues won't be a priority to him, even if it's just cutting funding here and there so he indirectly ends up closing abortion clinics or homeless shelters.
I don't disagree with that. Poilievre won't want to burn political capital on this issue and would much rather neglect these services, even if it's fiscally irresponsible to saddle future governments with the bill for cleaning these messes up. Yea, it is exhausting to watch important services degrade day by day.
But once again, this only underscores the need to establish electoral reform so that a plurality of 40% will never again grant the Conservatives a majority government with which they can sledgehammer our institutions.
And you won't get it with either party that actually can get elected but your life or the life of people in need will get a whole lot worse with one of those parties. If you don't care about that and live somewhere where the Conservatives can potentially get elected then go ahead and split the vote by voting NDP and I hope you sleep well at night knowing that some people are getting deported because of people who decided voting for their favorite party was more important than protecting other humans.
That is an absurd argument to make in a functional democracy, and I find it appalling you lack any self awareness of how entitled and cynical you sound. Why not direct this venom at the people of the riding who didn't vote, rather than the people who participated in democracy as intended? Why have venom at all?
If I was a swing voter, I would make sure any party whose supporters try to guilt trip me for exercising citizen's rights to vote (for whoever I want) is punished at the ballot box. That's not a winning strategy - that's being a sore loser.
If you can't accept the fact that we don't have a proportional system then the only problem here is you. FPTP requires that people vote strategically, it sucks, but that's what it is.
I'm just as mad at the people who don't vote at all, don't worry, but if you vote and only end up splitting the vote so your vote ends up counting as a vote for the person completely opposite to who you want in power instead of the compromise that actually has a chance to get elected then you're just as much part of the problem. Not realizing that means people around you (and potentially yourself) end up suffering. You can think it's me guilt tripping you all you want, if you take the time to think about it you already know it to be true.
What I see is 5k NDP and Greens voters who would rather see a conservative MP having the seat than make sure it's someone fairly progressive in place.
It's called having integrity. Although I largely don't agree with their politics, I am proud of the 5k NDP and Green for being uncompromising in their values.
ABC voters have no commitment to ideals or integrity, they'd vote for the likes of Stalin and Mao if it meant keeping a conservative out of office.
Don't have much integrity if you make decisions that will mean the people you want to protect will suffer even more just because you want to be able to say you sticked to your guns.