# The Federal Election: the aftermath



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

It is 10 pm Pacific Daylight Time, night before Election Day. So the Polls will close in Newfoundland and Labrador very soon, or maybe a half hour earlier. But there will be no posting of results here, please, til the polls close Pacific Daylight Time!

PS My wife and I are gonna go vote at 7 am PDT when the polls open, so it's not like we are trying to drag things out, eh!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dr T said:


> It is 10 pm Pacific Daylight Time, night before Election Day. So the Polls will close in Newfoundland and Labrador very soon, or maybe a half hour earlier. But there will be no posting of results here, please, til the polls close Pacific Daylight Time!
> 
> PS My wife and I are gonna go vote at 7 am PDT when the polls open, so it's not like we are trying to drag things out, eh!


It is 8:04AM here on Monday, May 2nd, in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the polls just opened a few minutes ago.

My wife and I voted at the advance polls, so the Orange Tide has just begun .......... my wife, born and raised in Alberta, voted for the NDP for the first time in her life. :clap:

We shall see.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

It will be the Orange Tsunami. Devastating the Liberals and the Bloc. Only the Tories shall survive, but not unscathed.

beejacon


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> It is 8:04AM here on Monday, May 2nd, in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the polls just opened a few minutes ago.
> 
> My wife and I voted at the advance polls, so the Orange Tide has just begun .......... my wife, born and raised in Alberta, voted for the NDP for the first time in her life. :clap:
> 
> We shall see.


MY wife and I lined up for the 7 am opening of the polls. The line-up at the advance polls was an hour-long thing, so we decided to defer voting til the last minute. There were only 7 or 8 people ahead of us this am, including the hitchhiker we picked upon the way, a woman in her 80s on her way to vote, too. That's the way it is here on the Island.
.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dr T said:


> MY wife and I lined up for the 7 am opening of the polls. The line-up at the advance polls was an hour-long thing, so we decided to defer voting til the last minute. There were only 7 or 8 people ahead of us this am, including the hitchhiker we picked upon the way, a woman in her 80s on her way to vote, too. That's the way it is here on the Island.
> .


This just in from CBC -- "CBC Television and CBC News Network will feature a live election special airing east of B.C. starting at 11 p.m. NT, when polling stations are closed elsewhere in the country. A blackout will be in effect in B.C. during that time, from 6:30 to 7 p.m. PT, before the broadcast goes coast to coast."

So, nothing to speak about here in NL until everything is closed in BC. 

So, guess there is no need to PM me from anywhere in the country to get early results, in that we shall all get the results at once. Such is Life.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ehMac.ca is closing comments on all threads related to the election for several hours Monday to comply with an elections law that forbids any instance of "premature transmission of results" until the last polls have closed in every electoral district in the country.

All threads on ehMac.ca relating to the election will be closed until all polling stations across the country have closed at 10 p.m. ET.

At this time, I ask that all ehMac.ca members comply with this request. Any posts relating to the election will be removed and members may face moderation action. 

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> It will be the Orange Tsunami. Devastating the Liberals and the Bloc. Only the Tories shall survive, but not unscathed.
> 
> beejacon


Looks like I was right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's not a Tsunami at all. A Tsunami would have made Layton Prime Minister. This is the aftermath of Liberal implosion, with Jack eating up the remnants.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

_So far_, looks like a Tory tsunami in Ontario.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> That's not a Tsunami at all. A Tsunami would have made Layton Prime Minister. This is the aftermath of Liberal implosion, with Jack eating up the remnants.


Call it what you will. 

Those that thought that the NDP would get disappointing results were completely wrong in their predictions. They lacked perception and understanding of what is really going on. 

Everything played out as I thought it would.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody thought that the NDP would be getting disappointing results considering the implosion of the Liberals. The disaffected left needed somewhere to run to.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Conservatives leading or winning in 160 ridings. Hurrah!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I couldn't have dreamed of a result so sweet. Hope it holds.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Hmmm... Reform party with (apparently as of now) a majority..... Massive NDP surge...... Dead Libs littering the landscape..... Bloc decimated... Could we be on the way back to a two party system?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Hmmm... Reform party with (apparently as of now) a majority..... Massive NDP surge...... Dead Libs littering the landscape..... Bloc decimated... Could we be on the way back to a two party system?


I doubt it. The Libs will be back. Who would have thought the Kim Campbell debacle would have resulted in a Conservative majority a few years hence?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I couldn't have dreamed of a result so sweet. Hope it holds.


They have a clear strong majority. Nothing to worry about. The lefties will bring balance to the government process.

We no longer have the Bloc screwing up the federal government demanding unreasonable special favours.

The Liberals need to eliminate the old corrupt slimeballs completely. Rebuild with new blood to become something worth considering voting for. They were light years away from that. Send Iggy back to Harvard. 

We have a much improved government.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I doubt it. The Libs will be back. Who would have thought the Kim Campbell debacle would have resulted in a Conservative majority a few years hence?


One would do well to remember that the current "Conservatives" are in fact the Reform. They are nothing like the now defunct _*Progressive*_ Conservatives of Kim Campbell et al.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> One would do well to remember that the current "Conservatives" are in fact the Reform. They are nothing like the now defunct _*Progressive*_ Conservatives of Kim Campbell et al.


That's why they now have a majority. The Liberals will similarly have to reinvent themselves.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Nobody thought that the NDP would be getting disappointing results considering the implosion of the Liberals. The disaffected left needed somewhere to run to.


Not just the Liberals. The Bloc imploded as well, which is a pretty strong statement for Quebec.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Not just the Liberals. The Bloc imploded as well, which is a pretty strong statement for Quebec.


Agreed, although the Libs should have been poised to fill that gap.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> One would do well to remember that the current "Conservatives" are in fact the Reform. They are nothing like the now defunct _*Progressive*_ Conservatives of Kim Campbell et al.


Oh yeah, I recall what a success Kim was.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Duceppe resigns!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Duceppe resigns!


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Duceppe resigns!


As is traditional when a Party leader loses his seat.... *looks pointedly at Iggy*


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Duceppe resigns!


The King of Quebec has lost his crown.

The Bloc is almost gone. Iggy is gone.

The first Green elected fair and square  

I'm liking this election more every minute.

 :love2:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Tis done, what an outcome. Totally happy with the results, could not have imagined the pwnage on the Libs and Bloc. Pack that parachute well Iggy and hope for a soft landing....wherever you may be going. Oh, and take Duceppe with you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Interesting results here in NL. The Conservatives grew their total vote count in our province by 25%, but were able to only gain one seat, in Labrador, for the first time in NL's history. The NDP also gained a seat and kept their one riding, so they now have two MPs from here. The Liberals held their own in four ridings, and NL seems to be their stronghold when looking at an electoral map. 

Still, one could see early on that it was going to be an orange and blue tide sweeping across Canada.

Yes, interesting results from coast to coast to coast. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Great outcome. That's what happens when a party calls for one of these "quicky" elections. People tend to look for other options, and the Liberals are the ones that are feeling the effects of that this morning. Will be very interesting to see what Harper will be able to accomplish with a majority government.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

One reality that will take place within the term of PM Harper is that his majority will enable him to put a conservative "stamp" upon the Supreme Court of Canada, with three members of the Court due to retire in the next four years. We shall see.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Only in Canada...a minority PM found in contempt of Parliament, wins a majority while the far left becomes the official opposition. Last night Harpers' spin doctors said he would have no problem working with Layton...(cause playing well with others is what he is known for)
The country in galvanized, the centre is gone for a while, 
enjoy...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> many of the right-leaning Liberals voted CPC last night because of their fear of the NDP forming a government (which was ridiculous and never going to happen). Many of the more left-leaning Liberals voted NDP because they saw this as their time. The result was much vote splitting and basically an abandonment of the party. This leaves a completely adrift party as it stands now. If the Liberals fold into the NDP we will basically have a "Republican" vs. "Democrat" shift in Canadian politics.


Will the left ever unite? I think that it isn't likely at this time. The NDP will be feeling too good about their gains to think that they require the liberals. They'll want to build on this surge. The question in my mind is what can they accomplish in a majority Harper parliament? So when the next election comes around what will they have to show for their time in opposition? 
The Liberals will need to rebuild. I think that task will see many who drift away, not enchanted with mucking in, and doing the dreary job of starting over. Perhaps this will usher in new people with a different approach. Time will tell I suppose. 
The lesson for me is that as long as the Conservatives can hang on to their 35 percent base, the left will be at a disadvantage until they can solve the left vote splitting conundrum.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Based on the results, I think that the Conservative Attack/Fear Mongering ads were effective at getting votes. I have to say, how they represented themselves made me not vote for them.

I think that the Liberals had a poor campaign, probably will see an Ignatieff resignation but hopefully not a Rae leadership.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JAMG said:


> Only in Canada...a minority PM found in contempt of Parliament,.


That line really resonated with Canadians, hey? It couldnt possibly have been political, could it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Will the left ever unite?


I hope so. I am confident thtat would give us more than 50 percent of the country.

The Liberals lost more seats to Conservatives than to the NDP.

It's pretty arrogent to assume voter intentions. They are two different parties for a reason.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I hope so. I am confident thtat would give us more than 50 percent of the country.
> 
> The Liberals lost more seats to Conservatives than to the NDP.
> 
> It's pretty arrogent to assume voter intentions. They are two different parties for a reason.


Exactly. What surprises me about a lot of these analyses is that it simply boils down for some people to--"they could win if they moved to the left"--or some such advice. If they did that, they would no longer be the party they were and could not act on their reason for forming the party in the first place. It isn't simply about grabbing power with no intentions to use it in a certain way.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Right, you got your majority. Let's see that auditor general's report.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I don't think a Unite the Left is a winning strategy... Canadians as a whole are not very lefty, and as much as the vote-splitting causes problems, I don't think anyone really wants a two-party system--especially when we look down south.

No, what we need is a "Bring back the Centre!" Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.... it will draw together all the Blue Liberals and Red Tories, and frankly I think there are a lot of those in Canada, and no one to represent that view.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I don't think a Unite the Left is a winning strategy... Canadians as a whole are not very lefty, and as much as the vote-splitting causes problems, I don't think anyone really wants a two-party system--especially when we look down south.
> 
> No, what we need is a "Bring back the Centre!" Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.... it will draw together all the Blue Liberals and Red Tories, and frankly I think there are a lot of those in Canada, and no one to represent that view.


You are right. But please don't.

The Liberals are actually dumb enough that they would do it. Only for a grab at power of course. 

What's the lesson of this election? Stick to your principles. It worked for the Cons and NDP.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I know many who could stand either party, but not Harper and his crowd. 60 per cent of this country did not vote for Stephen Harper. The Conservatives managed to scare another 2% or so of Liberal support their way and increase their seat count by over 20. Put another way, 60% or more of voters have consistently opposed the Conservatives for the last five years and continue to oppose them. So, how will the people who oppose the Conservative philosophy tackle this issue? Electoral reform isn't going to happen anytime soon, so do they steal a page from the reform playbook, or just wait for 5 or 10 years for the pendulum of Canadian politics to swing back to their way of thinking?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What's the lesson of this election? Stick to your principles. It worked for the Cons and NDP.


Agreed. 

The Liberal party--or some re-born version of them--needs to come up with a firmly centrist set of principles and stick to them, instead of this pushing and pulling back and forth to whomever they think will get them votes.

They need a platform that takes on the more popular the social and environmental policies of the NDP with a firm fiscally conservative stance and they could do very well. 

Mind you, that's a tough stance to actually pull off...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> 60 per cent of this country did not vote for Stephen Harper.


True.



Ottawaman said:


> Put another way,60% or more of voters have consistently opposed the Conservatives for the last five years and continue to oppose them.


False.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly, VanDave. Strict logic does not dictate the second point at all.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

2006 election results ..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> 2006 election results ..


Why did you post them?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It shows that Harper has not had the support of roughly 60% of the vote for the past 5 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> It shows that Harper has not had the support of roughly 60% of the vote for the past 5 years.


That was not the point of VanDave's comment. The 60 per cent did not necessarily oppose Harper. They just voted for other candidates they preferred.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Now that Harpo has his majority, the civilian population should be expecting to have their rifles and shotguns, confiscated. Since acquiring your vote, he and his gang of Thugs & Goons have absolutely no use for any of you, anymore. And he doesn't want to be dealing with an armed proletariat when the much required insurrection finally arrives.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Gene B said:


> Now that Harpo has his majority, the civilian population should be expecting to have their rifles and shotguns, confiscated. Since acquiring your vote, he and his gang of Thugs & Goons have absolutely no use for any of you, anymore. And he doesn't want to be dealing with an armed proletariat when the much required insurrection finally arrives.


You're obviously unaware of which side of the long gun registration debate the Conservatives were on ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gene B said:


> Now that Harpo has his majority, the civilian population should be expecting to have their rifles and shotguns, confiscated. Since acquiring your vote, he and his gang of Thugs & Goons have absolutely no use for any of you, anymore. And he doesn't want to be dealing with an armed proletariat when the much required insurrection finally arrives.


I believe it was the Liberals and NDP who were anti-gun.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That was not the point of VanDave's comment. The 60 per cent did not necessarily oppose Harper. They just voted for other candidates they preferred.


however, this works both ways. Those who voted for their conservative candidate, may not have done so to support Harper.

So, it's likely cancels each other out. Which brings us back, to square one. Though since Harper's number is quite a bit lower than the others, one could argue otherwise...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So, it's likely cancels each other out. .


No way of knowing that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No way of knowing that.


you seem to think you do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nope. I said there was no way of knowing whether the 60% were choosing their candidate as an anti-Conservative vote,


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, there's really no way of knowing that Canadians, really have accepted Harper's platform really either then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> so, there's really no way of knowing that Canadians, really have accepted Harper's platform really either then.


All we know is that 40% of them voted Conservative--a great victory.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

which brings us right back to 60% voted against Harper. 

I think Canadians had a rare opportunity to hold Ottawa accountable with minority or coalition governments. Despite what the screaming banshees have howled, coalitions have worked quite well for other countries for years. In fact, Israel, has done very well coalitions. I've said from the beginning, is we should not be awarding any of the parties full control. It has led to bloated corrupt government in the end, that's where this one will go. Just like the liberals.

Except somehow, some conservative supporters think this can't happen with Harper. Despite evidence to the contrary in minority. Would call Cretien's victory with the biggest majority in recent history and slamming the conservatives down to 2 seats, a victory? Perhaps for Chretien it was.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ottawaman said:


> I know many who could stand either party, but not Harper and his crowd. 60 per cent of this country did not vote for Stephen Harper. The Conservatives managed to scare another 2% or so of Liberal support their way and increase their seat count by over 20. Put another way, 60% or more of voters have consistently opposed the Conservatives for the last five years and continue to oppose them. So, how will the people who oppose the Conservative philosophy tackle this issue? Electoral reform isn't going to happen anytime soon, so do they steal a page from the reform playbook, or just wait for 5 or 10 years for the pendulum of Canadian politics to swing back to their way of thinking?


~40% of eligible voters chose not to exercise their democratic right. If you're pissed Harper was elected, blame them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> 60 per cent of this country did not vote for Stephen Harper.


That may be the impression you are striving to leave, but it is not quite so. Don't forget that 39% of Canadians eligible to vote, did not. If even one third of them didn't vote because they were happy with the Conservative performance, a majority of Canadians could be claimed as supporting Harper.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

groovetube said:


> which brings us right back to 60% voted against Harper.


I voted Green. A Conservative easily won the election in my riding as predicted. If he was in a close race with the Liberals, I would have voted Conservative.

Harper will probably continue to be a pretty good PM. I have no problem with him at the helm, and the NDP as official opposition. 

It's the Liberals I can't stand.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

could you imagine if this sentiment was far, far stronger?

I suspect many who voted conservative, was a vote against the liberals, and not so much -for- the tories.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> which brings us right back to 60% voted against Harper.


Which brings us right back to the fact that this is unproven. They clearly did not vote FOR him, but they also did not clearly vote against him.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Which brings us right back to the fact that this is unproven. They clearly did not vote FOR him, but they also did not clearly vote against him.


Macfury. As has happened with previous majority governments, 40% cast their ballots, for a conservative candidate. And 60%, did NOT vote for a conservative candidate.

It doesn't matter what reasons you might dream up, why there could possibly be so many that didn't vote conservative. But ultimately, the election is the ultimate poll. And the one that has determined who forms the majority government.

You can dance around, and surmise all sorts of things. However, what seems very clear, is there was a HUGE shift from the liberals to the ndp. There was a small shift, to the conservatives. And with the huge shift towards the ndp, it not only sent the ndp into 2nd place, it also created a larger vote split, that resulted in many more seats for Harper.

This is what happened. Spin, or no spin.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> One would do well to remember that the current "Conservatives" are in fact the Reform. They are nothing like the now defunct _*Progressive*_ Conservatives of Kim Campbell et al.


This is completely wrong, the the CPC is *not* in fact the Reform, previous Reform MPs make up less than 10% of the Caucus. Get out much or read a little from time to time?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Macfury. As has happened with previous majority governments, 40% cast their ballots, for a conservative candidate. And 60%, did NOT vote for a conservative candidate.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reasons you might dream up, why there could possibly be so many that didn't vote conservative. But ultimately, the election is the ultimate poll. And the one that has determined who forms the majority government.
> 
> ...


Exactly. 40% voted conservative. 60% voted for other parties. But not necessarily against the Conservatives.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And if even a third of the 40% who DID NOT vote, did so because they were happy with the Conservative status quo, the Conservatives might even have the support of a majority of Canadians. It is withine the realm of possibility.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> This is completely wrong, the the CPC is *not* in fact the Reform, previous Reform MPs make up less than 10% of the Caucus. Get out much or read a little from time to time?


true, for instance, the reform party stood for abolishing the golden pension plans, you don't see any sign of this anywhere now.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> That may be the impression you are striving to leave, but it is not quite so. Don't forget that 39% of Canadians eligible to vote, did not. If even one third of them didn't vote because they were happy with the Conservative performance, a majority of Canadians could be claimed as supporting Harper.


This is fact...why?

The old saw is those who fail to vote, vote with the majority.

It is quite a leap of faith to ascribe any motive as to why a citizens choose to or not to vote. 

It is pure spin to claim why somebody failed to do a thing and then use a suggested hypothesis as a fact.

Well ain't that sweet?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> And if even a third of the 40% who DID NOT vote, did so because they were happy with the Conservative status quo, the Conservatives might even have the support of a majority of Canadians. It is withine the realm of possibility.


ha ha ha really? Did you knock on their doors to find this out?

My, so, 40% of Canadians did not vote, cause they were happy with Harper!

This is ridiculous Sinc. There are likely many, many reasons why that 40% didn't vote.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Certainly unless a poll were conducted to know why those 40% didn't vote there is no way of knowing why they didn't vote. But logic would indicate that at least portion of them didn't because they were apathetic and generally one is apathetic about something that doesn't bother them, so while the whole 40% is not likely to have been content with the status quo I think it is reasonable to assume that some portion of them were.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I did, I knocked on a few doors. the depaneur owner down the street said he had too many things to think about with his business and family, other than an election. The students I talked to, didn't think their vote would count with the system the way it is - it seems they're waiting for proportional representaltion. Some people didn't vote because there wasn't one party they felt they'd be happy with. And the list goes on. I would like to note though, none of them wanted Harper back in, not one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

singingcrow said:


> I did, I knocked on a few doors. the depaneur owner down the street said he had too many things to think about with his business and family, other than an election. The students I talked to, didn't think their vote would count with the system the way it is - it seems they're waiting for proportional representaltion. Some people didn't vote because there wasn't one party they felt they'd be happy with. And the list goes on. I would like to note though, none of them wanted Harper back in, not one.


Hardly scientific... you are also talking about Montreal so hardly surprising either.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

so with a Conservative majority and NDP opposition (both parties want senate reform or abolishment) does that mean the end of the Senate or will Harper back peddle on that now that he can continue to stack it with lackeys?


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

screature said:


> Hardly scientific... you are also talking about Montreal so hardly surprising either.


No it's not scientific, but I did ask the question people wanted to ask, and no, not everyone I asked was in Montreal. I asked people all across the country, from coast to coast.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

At darkhorse this aft getting a coffee the barista told a worker from next door that he didn't vote because a)he didn't think his vote would matter and b)he doesn't like to think about politics. 

So I'd probably agree with Screature that it's largely apathy, but wouldn't necessarily agree that this apathy stems from them "not minding" current gov, especially if the person actively avoids politics and is not aware of what's going on. (sorry for the run-on sentence)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> so with a Conservative majority and NDP opposition (both parties want senate reform or abolishment) does that mean the end of the Senate or will Harper back peddle on that now that he can continue to stack it with lackeys?


I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'll bet anyone here a $10 iTunes gift certificate that the senate won't be reformed or abolished before the next election.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'll bet anyone here a $10 iTunes gift certificate that the senate won't be reformed or abolished before the next election.


Hate to say you are probably right but even with both parties supporting senate reform I doubt it'll happen. Electoral/Senate reform is necessary but it won't come from the parties in power: the parties who have the most to lose.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

SINC said:


> And if even a third of the 40% who DID NOT vote, did so because they were happy with the Conservative status quo, the Conservatives might even have the support of a majority of Canadians. It is withine the realm of possibility.



While I reject this 1/3 of the people who didn't vote were possibly happy with Harper. I also question your math.

I'll break it down (please correct any of my numbers if they are wrong.)

Voter turnout

Voter turnout: 61.4%, 14.7 million

Total eligible voters: 23,941,368

People who voted for harper: 14,700,000 x .396 = 5,821,200

Percentage of eligible voters who voted for harper = 24.31%

If I did believe your 1/3 of non voters wanted Harper, this gives: 37.2% so your support is actually down from the election. 

Support for Harper needed from non voters to give him majority of popular vote : 66.54%

That is likely not in the realm of possibility.

I am for electoral reform and some sort of incentive (haven't figured out how you can effectively do this though) to vote


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'll bet anyone here a $10 iTunes gift certificate that the senate won't be reformed or abolished before the next election.


Does reforming the senate require a constitutional change? If so - you're right.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'll bet anyone here a $10 iTunes gift certificate that the senate won't be reformed or abolished before the next election.


I'll take that bet!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

adagio said:


> I'll take that bet!


You're on. I always like bets that I can't loose; I'd happily pay $10 to see the senate abolished or at least reformed. That's one of a few things I've always agreed with Harper about.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Still waiting for even a word about when the Auditor General's report.

Honestly there's a lot of things the Conservatives can do to improve their reputation in my eyes. Not even loopy-lefty things either. I'll start the list:
1) Reimburse the Toronto businesses that were affected and trashed by holding the G20 in DT Toronto. Even a fraction of the $29 mill they blew in Huntsville alone would have been better spent there.
2) While we are on the subject: if the Auditors General report clears them unequivocally of any wrong doing on spending for infrastructure projects I'll back down on my tirade about that.
3) Senate Reform

In that order.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

singingcrow said:


> No it's not scientific, but I did ask the question people wanted to ask, and no, not everyone I asked was in Montreal. I asked people all across the country, from coast to coast.





jawknee said:


> At darkhorse this aft getting a coffee the barista told a worker from next door that he didn't vote because a)he didn't think his vote would matter and b)he doesn't like to think about politics.
> 
> So I'd probably agree with Screature that it's largely apathy, but wouldn't necessarily agree that this apathy stems from them "not minding" current gov, especially if the person actively avoids politics and is not aware of what's going on. (sorry for the run-on sentence)


All I was saying is that a (unknown) number of those who didn't vote was due to apathy and an unknown number of those apathetic citizens were apathetic because they didn't mind the status quo... I think this is only reasonable to assume. Whether this number was 1% or 50% obviously I cannot say and no "personal" poll conducted by someone here is indicative of anything other than the views of the people they contacted....

singingcrow you said you knocked on a few doors... how is this coast to coast?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'll bet anyone here a $10 iTunes gift certificate that the senate won't be reformed or abolished before the next election.





MLeh said:


> Does reforming the senate require a constitutional change? If so - you're right.


I'll take that bet... it is a matter of degrees... will it it be abolished no, that is not what CPC policy proposes, that is NDP policy. Currently the policy proposes term limits and elected senators. The former is much more likely and easily doable the second requires opening up the constitution.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> Still waiting for even a word about when the Auditor General's report.
> 
> Honestly there's a lot of things the Conservatives can do to improve their reputation in my eyes. Not even loopy-lefty things either. I'll start the list:
> 1) Reimburse the Toronto businesses that were affected and trashed by holding the G20 in DT Toronto. Even a fraction of the $29 mill they blew in Huntsville alone would have been better spent there.
> ...


If you were to reverse the order and take away the last two on your list (in reverse order) I would think you might be onto something that actually may happen.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

jwootton said:


> Voter turnout: 61.4%, 14.7 million
> 
> Total eligible voters: 23,941,368


Thanks for the numbers. My mom was talking about the 59.1% that voted in 2008 and was hoping that more people would get out and vote. It's good to see more did, but 61.4% is still fairly pitiful. 

Then again, does that 23.9 million eligible voters include seniors who are not mentally aware, mentally disable people, etc. There may be about 5% of the eligible that may not even know what's going on!


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

screature said:


> All I was saying is that a (unknown) number of those who didn't vote was due to apathy and an unknown number of those apathetic citizens were apathetic because they didn't mind the status quo... I think this is only reasonable to assume. Whether this number was 1% or 50% obviously I cannot say and no "personal" poll conducted by some one here is indicative of anything other than the views of the people they contacted....


Of course. I was just adding to the complexity of it all. My guess is that where there's one, there'll be many in the same boat for all of those cases.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jawknee said:


> Of course. I was just adding to the complexity of it all. My guess is that where there's one, there'll be many in the same boat for all of those cases.


Agreed.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

On voting and incentive, I wonder what the implications of making voting compulsory would be... certainly a federal fine would get some people off their butts to go out and vote?... not sure if this has been discussed already


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jawknee said:


> On voting and incentive, I wonder what the implications of making voting mandatory would be... certainly a federal fine would get some people off their butts to go out and vote?... not sure if this has been discussed already


Many times. But I would rather that people who have no interest in the election not vote at all.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Many times. But I would rather that people who have no interest in the election not vote at all.


yeah I suppose it could be a double-edged sword.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Many times. But I would rather that people who have no interest in the election not vote at all.


Exactly.... ignorance may be bliss... except when it comes to running a nation and if those who are forced (coerced) into voting are ignorant of the issues and then choose the party they should vote for based on the results of a/the "Vote Compass" to decide how they would vote I would be very, very afraid.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i don't bleed a specific party colour, but I am glad that it's a majority.

I'm tired of the opposition causing all these elections. I don't think it was conducive to letting a party run it's platform. It's like an author continuously being interrupted from finishing his book.

And that book might not be a best seller, but at least let it be finished.

Also, I personally feel that we were making progress with the Tories. I may not agree with everything they have going on, but can anyone honestly say that about any party? I certainly didn't like the feel of the liberals and I'm so glad Iggy took an a$$ kicking.

Same with Duceppe. I love Quebec, I believe it's an important part of Canada, but this seperation crap has hurt Canada's economy over the years so hopefully that garbage is done.

Not sure what to make of the NDP...could be good or bad I guess. Time will tell.

I just hope the Tories keep on their promises and do some good. Our dollar is strong and our position seems to be in a good one.

Fingers crossed....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

keebler27 said:


> I'm tired of the opposition causing all these elections.


Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

One thing I'll give Harper full credit for is that he's a very savvy politician, and he plays the system well. His timing forcing this election was spot-on, and he managed to run a campaign without saying much of anything, thereby avoiding the backlash that might've spoiled his majority. :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> One thing I'll give Harper full credit for is that he's a very savvy politician, and he plays the system well. His timing forcing this election was spot-on, and he managed to run a campaign without saying much of anything, thereby avoiding the backlash that might've spoiled his majority. :clap:


+1. Anyone who thinks for one second this was caused by the opposition was hoodwinked by Harper as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Conspiracy theories, guys? Iggy was on the record wanting this.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Conspiracy theories, guys? Iggy was on the record wanting this.


That's the brilliant part of the plan.... :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mark macfury down as having fallen for it too.

Harper is indeed, quite shrewd. I'll give him that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm having you for dinner. I pegged this as Harper manipulating Iggy from the start. Harper convinced Iggy this was his last best hope at being PM. He appealed to his vanity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm having you for dinner. I pegged this as Harper manipulating Iggy from the start. Harper convinced Iggy this was his last best hope at being PM. He appealed to his vanity.


I see, and that's why you posted this.



Macfury said:


> Conspiracy theories, guys? Iggy was on the record wanting this.


There's conservatives all over the bogosphere, as well as Harper himself who ragged about 'unnecessary elections'.

An excellent example of why conservatives, cannot be trusted. Period.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why not do us all a favour and kill this thread along with the sore losers who are perpetuating it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

in the spirit of what I'm hearing from 'it's a western thing', you could just go somewhere else (another thread?) if you don't like it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Why not do us all a favour and kill this thread along with the sore losers who are perpetuating it?


Sore losers? Sore winners?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Why not do us all a favour and kill this thread along with the sore losers who are perpetuating it?


If you don't like it, don't read it. No room for other opinions Sinc?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's a majority. It's OVER. Deal with it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> It's a majority. It's OVER. Deal with it.


People *are* dealing with it. It's called a discussion.

consider it a peaceful protest.

no need to get all G20 in this thread and try to shut it down.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh it's far, from over. Conservatives want you to think this is over. But as a Canadian, I will talk about the issues, and express my opinion about things regardless, of conservatives telling me to shut up about it.

Can we dispense with the attempts at shutting people up, and allow discussion about the results and what we think about it. Thank you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What was Muloonie left with after the largest Con majority in history?.....oh yeah....the number 2 comes to mind.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What was Muloonie left with after the largest Con majority in history?.....oh yeah....the number 2 comes to mind.


Glory days... na na nahh nahhhh... glory days, glory days.... :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Would call Cretien's victory with the biggest majority in recent history and slamming the conservatives down to 2 seats, a victory? Perhaps for Chretien it was.


It was also a victory for the Reform Party.At least Conservatives were willing to see they had a problem and rightly dropped support for their party. Liberals seem to be a little more hard headed. 18% of Canadians should feel very ashamed today.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> It was also a victory for the Reform Party.At least Conservatives were willing to see they had a problem and rightly dropped support for their party. Liberals seem to be a little more hard headed. 18% of Canadians should feel very ashamed today.


and, how many years, was it from that body slam to 2 seats, to the merger?

1? 3?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

With the election over and a few people upset and others happy, I'm going to close this thread and I've started a new ehMac Canadian Politics thread *here*.

We've got about 4 or 5 really similar threads going, so this will help merge the conversation.


----------

