If some of you can bring yourself to read a liberal website, this is a really good summary of Canadian politics for 'Mericans and a primer on the really interesting elections coming up there. A few weeks ago it looked like the Conservatives were heading for a majority and now it looks equally plausible that Canada will have its first socialist prime minister. Back in my political scientist days I always thought Canadian politics was fascinating regardless whether you think Canada is more like the American you want or a warning on what we shouldn't become...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg
(05-02-2011 01:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2011 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg
Executive summary: things would be a lot easier without the French!
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced the're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
I'm also a political scientist and I thought the Conservative Party's victory in the first place was a great surprize. I think Preston Manning giving up control of the ALberta-based Reform party to help lead a renaissance of the Conservative party was an overwhelming thing. And while I'm not much for separatist movements, I now wish the Quebecois party had been successful in its attempt to remove Quebec from Canada. I will look at that liberal site though. It sounds like fascinating reading.
I just read the article. Great analysis! I wished they had mentioned Preston Manning, but then again its a liberal ( small l) article.
(04-30-2011 03:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If some of you can bring yourself to read a liberal website, this is a really good summary of Canadian politics for 'Mericans and a primer on the really interesting elections coming up there. A few weeks ago it looked like the Conservatives were heading for a majority and now it looks equally plausible that Canada will have its first socialist prime minister. Back in my political scientist days I always thought Canadian politics was fascinating regardless whether you think Canada is more like the American you want or a warning on what we shouldn't become...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...?ref=fpblg
fixed link:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/perky-c...aws,19927/
The results remind me of 80s UK in a way. 60% of the people voted liberal/social democratic/green, but the conservatives end up with a majority with only 40% of the vote. It will be interesting to see if the NDP and Liberals work together in 4 years or keep splitting the center/center-left vote.
(05-03-2011 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]60% of the people voted liberal/social democratic/green, but the conservatives end up with a majority with only 40% of the vote.
You mean someone will become chief executive without gettting a majority of the popular vote? How un-democratic! An outrage!
Signed,
H. Truman
J. Kennedy
R. Nixon
W. Clinton
W. Clinton
G. W. Bush
(05-03-2011 01:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2011 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]60% of the people voted liberal/social democratic/green, but the conservatives end up with a majority with only 40% of the vote.
You mean someone will become chief executive without gettting a majority of the popular vote? How un-democratic! An outrage!
Signed,
H. Truman
J. Kennedy
R. Nixon
W. Clinton
W. Clinton
G. W. Bush
Or just about every post-war British PM. Except, oddly enough, Cameron, if you count his coalition partners. (And a few other short lived coalition governments there.)
Just to be clear, I wasn't expressing outrage, just an observation of the parallel to Thatcher, who was generally disliked/hated by a divided majority but consistently elected by a unified plurality. Will be interesting to see how Harper's government changes now that he has a majority. And also if the NDP and Libs can work together next election. I can't see them merging, but there are a number of seats where their vote splitting handed the tories seats, so you'd think some strategery would be in order.
I generally prefer parliamentary systems to our separation of powers model, but like a little more proportional representation than a straight first past the post system. Though FPTP does elect solid, strong governments - they just often lack majority support...
(05-03-2011 02:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2011 01:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2011 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]60% of the people voted liberal/social democratic/green, but the conservatives end up with a majority with only 40% of the vote.
You mean someone will become chief executive without gettting a majority of the popular vote? How un-democratic! An outrage!
Signed,
H. Truman
J. Kennedy
R. Nixon
W. Clinton
W. Clinton
G. W. Bush
Just to be clear, I wasn't expressing outrage,
I didn't think you were, and I didn't mean to imply that you were.
In 2002, I do remember hearing a fair bit of tut-tutting from the Europhile chattering classes that the U.S. President was not elected by popular majority -- a tut-tutting which seems to have been absent regarding the other years. So my sarcasm was directed there.
Quote:just an observation of the parallel to Thatcher, who was generally disliked/hated by a divided majority
"Generally disliked/hated" - really? If that is an accurate summation of popular opinion of the Thatcher government at the time, then that says a lot (perhaps all you need to know) about popular opinion.
Signed,
H. Truman
J. Kennedy
R. Nixon
W. Clinton
W. Clinton
G. W. Bush
Lincoln and Wilson, too.
Benjamin Harrison (Grover Cleveland won the popular vote.)
Andrew Jackson led in the popular and electoral vote, but still lost to John Q. Adams.
That Q was worth 10 points on the Electoral College Scrabble Board, getting him the win.
(05-03-2011 01:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-03-2011 12:36 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]60% of the people voted liberal/social democratic/green, but the conservatives end up with a majority with only 40% of the vote.
You mean someone will become chief executive without gettting a majority of the popular vote? How un-democratic! An outrage!
Signed,
H. Truman
J. Kennedy
R. Nixon
W. Clinton
W. Clinton
G. W. Bush
And this doesn't even take into account those who choose NOT to vote at all, which is actually in recent years the majority. A wise philosopher once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
The big story here (other than the Conservatives winning an absolute majority rather than just a plurality like the last two elections) is the collapse of the Liberals (which had been one of the top two parties in all previous federal elections) to their lowest vote percentage ever in an election and its replacement as the major leftist party by the New Democrats (which got its highest totals ever and now is the Official Opposition), and also the near-destruction of the Bloc Québécois, for four years in the 1990s the Official Opposition, which fell from 47 seats to 4 and lost official party status. I guess Igniatieff and the Liberals that pushed through the no-confidence vote should have been careful about what they wished for....