You offer us a great deal of analysis of polls, but without ever discussing the fact that our first-past-the -post electoral inevitably distorts the popular will - normally to the advantage of the leading party, but sometimes to the advantage of the second party (the Liberals at present) and occasionally to the advantage of a fringe party ( the Bloc québécois). You can't discuss politics without addressing the voting system.
It depends on what your definition of the popular will is. In Canada this is currently defined through a first past the post system and we elect one representative per riding. Other countries define the popular will in a different way.
Of course we can have a debate if different electoral system would result in a more effective government. Or result in higher quality of governance. But honestly, that is a bit like debating if the offside rule in hockey leads to more exiting games or not. In the meantime elections and hockey games are using the rules we currently have. Not the rules we may think are better (or worse).
Yes, we are stuck for the moment with the rules we have now. That's the scary part! The rules we have now allow (and usually ensure) one-party rule by a party without the support of a majority of the electors. Right now we do have a government supported by a majority of voters (because of the Liberal-NDP agreement), but there is a real possibility that the next federal election will take us back to minority rule - i.e. government by and for a minority of the electorate. The time for the debate is now!
Abacus numbers always seem way, way over the norm and in his thread he even mentioned his polls for ATL weren't great/sufficient.
One thing is always true about ATL Canada is they're pogey-town. Especially New Brunswick but Newfoundland-Labrador isn't exactly Bay Street East. They know they'll lose social benefits in exchange for...nothing, really, and I expect CPC to garner at most 4-7 seats in that area.
That's not enough to form a majority, UNLESS they completely crush it in ON and B.C..
Why do they need a Majority? Because the BQ can be real assholes about it, that's why.
Imagine one of the following scenarios:
"Hi Y-F, can be do a coalition?"
"Sure, you and your party take a French exam, no electronic help, pencil to paper dictation. 500 words. If less than 80% of your party scores less than 80%, no deal."
"..."
OR
"Hi Y_F, can we do a coalition?"
"Sure, immediate control of Immigration to QC, immediate cessation of Income Tax payments to Canada with a QC only tax form, we're not part of Canada so go fuck yourself."
"...."
OR
"Hi Y-F can we do a coalition?"
"Sure, but you need to increase transfer payments to QC by 40% more than you do now. And you need to make MTL a French-Only zone."
"..."
So...you tell me how long this agreement would last. Because if you think BQ is going to do ANYTHING but use a hammer over CPC, you're living in a dream world. QC doesn't care about Canada and the sooner Polievre starts licking Blanchet's boots the better, because no one else will partner with him.
And if you think I'm exaggerating in the slightest, watch Blanchet's demands. And please please please don't bring up Alberta, they are irrelevant to Canadian politics as long as they don't elect a separatist party to HoC over CPC.
And, ultimately, that is why I'm not afraid of CPC. The path to a majority isn't there and any path to a minority must involve QC.
Two important considerations for Atlantic Canada that isn’t part of this good analysis 1) the Acadian votes, 2) the importance of the employment insurance regime in this region.
I think there are opportunities for the CPC in pretty much each province where they do not have already all the seats. And it would not be terribly hard to win these, but it would require a completely different approach.
Instead of constantly yelling that Trudeau is incompetent (but highly competent in corruption), ruining Canada, etc. etc., think of an approach that ignores Trudeau completely. Articulate clear priorities, present somewhat detailed plans to address these priorities and make the case you are the team with fresh and better ideas. This approach would work well in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the GTA and BC.
However, something tells me that the current CPC is not capable of doing this. For them it is more important to bash Trudeau than it is to show why they would do a better job. And this is why, even with Trudeau’s popularity at the lowest levels, they are heading for another 4 years of official opposition.
You offer us a great deal of analysis of polls, but without ever discussing the fact that our first-past-the -post electoral inevitably distorts the popular will - normally to the advantage of the leading party, but sometimes to the advantage of the second party (the Liberals at present) and occasionally to the advantage of a fringe party ( the Bloc québécois). You can't discuss politics without addressing the voting system.
It depends on what your definition of the popular will is. In Canada this is currently defined through a first past the post system and we elect one representative per riding. Other countries define the popular will in a different way.
Of course we can have a debate if different electoral system would result in a more effective government. Or result in higher quality of governance. But honestly, that is a bit like debating if the offside rule in hockey leads to more exiting games or not. In the meantime elections and hockey games are using the rules we currently have. Not the rules we may think are better (or worse).
Yes, we are stuck for the moment with the rules we have now. That's the scary part! The rules we have now allow (and usually ensure) one-party rule by a party without the support of a majority of the electors. Right now we do have a government supported by a majority of voters (because of the Liberal-NDP agreement), but there is a real possibility that the next federal election will take us back to minority rule - i.e. government by and for a minority of the electorate. The time for the debate is now!
Abacus numbers always seem way, way over the norm and in his thread he even mentioned his polls for ATL weren't great/sufficient.
One thing is always true about ATL Canada is they're pogey-town. Especially New Brunswick but Newfoundland-Labrador isn't exactly Bay Street East. They know they'll lose social benefits in exchange for...nothing, really, and I expect CPC to garner at most 4-7 seats in that area.
That's not enough to form a majority, UNLESS they completely crush it in ON and B.C..
Why do they need a Majority? Because the BQ can be real assholes about it, that's why.
Imagine one of the following scenarios:
"Hi Y-F, can be do a coalition?"
"Sure, you and your party take a French exam, no electronic help, pencil to paper dictation. 500 words. If less than 80% of your party scores less than 80%, no deal."
"..."
OR
"Hi Y_F, can we do a coalition?"
"Sure, immediate control of Immigration to QC, immediate cessation of Income Tax payments to Canada with a QC only tax form, we're not part of Canada so go fuck yourself."
"...."
OR
"Hi Y-F can we do a coalition?"
"Sure, but you need to increase transfer payments to QC by 40% more than you do now. And you need to make MTL a French-Only zone."
"..."
So...you tell me how long this agreement would last. Because if you think BQ is going to do ANYTHING but use a hammer over CPC, you're living in a dream world. QC doesn't care about Canada and the sooner Polievre starts licking Blanchet's boots the better, because no one else will partner with him.
And if you think I'm exaggerating in the slightest, watch Blanchet's demands. And please please please don't bring up Alberta, they are irrelevant to Canadian politics as long as they don't elect a separatist party to HoC over CPC.
And, ultimately, that is why I'm not afraid of CPC. The path to a majority isn't there and any path to a minority must involve QC.
Two important considerations for Atlantic Canada that isn’t part of this good analysis 1) the Acadian votes, 2) the importance of the employment insurance regime in this region.
I think there are opportunities for the CPC in pretty much each province where they do not have already all the seats. And it would not be terribly hard to win these, but it would require a completely different approach.
Instead of constantly yelling that Trudeau is incompetent (but highly competent in corruption), ruining Canada, etc. etc., think of an approach that ignores Trudeau completely. Articulate clear priorities, present somewhat detailed plans to address these priorities and make the case you are the team with fresh and better ideas. This approach would work well in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the GTA and BC.
However, something tells me that the current CPC is not capable of doing this. For them it is more important to bash Trudeau than it is to show why they would do a better job. And this is why, even with Trudeau’s popularity at the lowest levels, they are heading for another 4 years of official opposition.