Election 2015

[jollyjacktar]

That is true, but voting and bitching afterwards isn't so satisfactory either.  It's a lose-lose in that regard.  We're all along for the ride regardless if we like the ride or not.

 

[Scott]

And some of us, such as myself, have (almost) always voted PC and now find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.  I don't quite honestly like any one of the players enough to decide.  I may just sit this one out.

Yup.

I can't quite come to terms with a vote that will land behind Trudeau, because I still can't take him seriously - and trust me, this last year I have tried. Then again, I live in Peter MacKay's riding...and while I really do like David MacLeod, I think Jesus Christ himself could run against MacKay here and still lose in a landslide.

I won't sit out, but I'm certainly not happy with any of the choices left to me - more than in any election before.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yeah, we're in the same riding...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't vote based on what I think of the leaders. None of them have ridings in my area.

I vote on what's in the platform for Canada and also for what it means for me and mine (heavy on the me & mine.)

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, but the leaders have a great deal to do with what's one the platform.  You cannot cut them out of the equation, not to mention that your flavour of choice may be a lame duck.  If you're a dyed in the wool Liberal for instance, good luck with being happy in Calgary, for example. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes, but the leaders have a great deal to do with what's one the platform.  You cannot cut them out of the equation, not to mention that your flavour of choice may be a lame duck.  If you're a dyed in the wool Liberal for instance, good luck with being happy in Calgary, for example.

You're very right. It seems to me that there are several factors we ought to consider:

    1. The platform ~ what is each party promising to do for, to and about us all?

    2. Track record ~ how have parties been over a reasonable period, say the last 15± years, at keeping their promises and at managing the country or some provinces?

    3. The leader ~ how does (s)he implement policies and manage the team?

    4. The team ~ who are the candidates across the party/country? Do we really want all these people in power?

    5. The issues ~ what bothers YOU most, what are parties promising to do about the issues about which you care?

 

[ballz]

I know a lot of people will say "that's a waste of a vote" but if you look at how many people are saying "I might not even vote," or "I don't like any of these options," it's certainly not a waste to vote for a non-mainstream party. To me, voting Liberal / Conservative is semantics, neither offers any real meaningful change, and I think the country does need meaningful change.

I am voting Libertarian despite the fact that I know they we will probably not win a seat. We may, however, run a full slate of candidates (I don't think so, but 250-300 is my guess) for the first time ever, and I am guessing we will finish 6th behind the Greens with more than 1% of the popular vote. The Greens got 1 seat last time with 3.91%.

While most look at 1% as insignificant, it is the growth that counts. To go from .04% to 1% and a full slate of candidates would be a big deal, especially considering the historical evidence that shows that when 10% of a population adopts an unshakeable belief (which I believe Libertarianism is), the rest of society follows quickly. We only need ~140,000 votes, or around 400 per riding, to accomplish this. This is not unachievable, and anyone that does believe that they are overtaxed and the government plays too large of a role in our lives, I ask you to seriously consider it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I know a lot of people will say "that's a waste of a vote" but if you look at how many people are saying "I might not even vote," or "I don't like any of these options," it's certainly not a waste to vote for a non-mainstream party. To me, voting Liberal / Conservative is semantics, neither offers any real meaningful change, and I think the country does need meaningful change.

I am voting Libertarian despite the fact that I know they we will probably not win a seat. We may, however, run a full slate of candidates (I don't think so, but 250-300 is my guess) for the first time ever, and I am guessing we will finish 6th behind the Greens with more than 1% of the popular vote. The Greens got 1 seat last time with 3.91%.

While most look at 1% as insignificant, it is the growth that counts. To go from .04% to 1% and a full slate of candidates would be a big deal, especially considering the historical evidence that shows that when 10% of a population adopts an unshakeable belief (which I believe Libertarianism is), the rest of society follows quickly. We only need ~140,000 votes, or around 400 per riding, to accomplish this. This is not unachievable, and anyone that does believe that they are overtaxed and the government plays too large of a role in our lives, I ask you to seriously consider it.

Good for you, ballz! It is a thoughtful, principled vote which will put you in a tiny minority on voting day.

Some Canadians, sadly not a majority, will think about why they are voting; some others, again far from "most," will vote based on some principles; a few, like ballz, will do both. Most will vote based on unhealthy biases, their responses to carefully crafted advertisements or, worse, from habit.


Edit: typo

 

[jollyjacktar]

That, is an intersting proposal ballz.  I don't know what options, if any, from the usual suspects I'll have to choose from in the next election. 

Well, I've had a look and they're not running a candidate in my riding.  Interesting party though, I'll keep an eye out for them down the road.  It still leaves me with not much of a voting choice right now.

 

[George Wallace]

Good for you, ballz! It is a thoughtful, principled vote which will put you in a tiny minority on voting day.

Some Canadians, sadly not a majority, will think about why they are voting; some others, again far from "most," will vote based on some principles; a few, like ballz, will do both. Most will vote based on unhealthy biases, their responses to carefully crafted advertisements or, worse, from habit.


Edit: typo

Anything is possible.  The appearance of Reform into the equation and their success in attaining seats in the House is one such example.  That they felt then needed to merge back with the Conservative Party is another thing altogether.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For reasons I'm not at all sure I understand, political polls have become suspect. I'm told, by people who should know, that consumer/audience polls are still highly reliable but political polls have two problems:

    1. Apparent inconsistency ~ too many (public) polls are biased and produce results that only further confuse the general public. We should, for example, not be surprised when a polling firm with a long history with Party A
        produces a poll that differs substantially from that produced by another firm with a long history with Party B. The media makes it worse by failing, normally, to explain polling to viewers/readers; and

    2. Public disenchantment with politics. Canadians, likie Australians, Brits, Chileans and Danes and so on are disenchanted with politics and mistrust politicians so they tend to treat political polling calls as a chance to "hit back"
        and they flat out lie to the pollsters.

The two trends feed upon each other.

My wholly unscientific guess is:

    Now, nearly six months out -

          Conservatives have a firm 20%± of the vote, even if the damned economy collapses and the PM is caught in some sort of scandal they'll get at least 17.5%;

        Liberals have a firm 20%+ of the vote, even if Justin Trudeau makes a series of HUGE gaffes they'll get at least 20%;

          The New Democrats have a firm 15±% of the vote, no matter what goes wrong they'll get at least 12.5% of the vote; and

          All the Others have a firm grip on 10% of the vote.

That means that, between now an voting day, 40% of the vote can be shifted from one camp to any of the others.

In a three+ party system a comfortable majority can be had with 40% of the popular vote. Both the Conservatives and Liberals are, almost automatically, half way there when they start. (Remember than even in 1993, when the PCs were, effectively, wiped out, reduced to the status of just two "independent members," they got 16% of the popular vote.) Which brings up a second point: vote efficiency is just as important as vote strength. It is far, far better to win many seats by small margins than a few seats by very large numbers, as the Conservatives do in many rural areas and the Liberals do in urban Montreal and Toronto.


Edit: typo

Please note that polling six months before an election is a mug's game, but it will impact on the campaigns, and, Abacus Data suggests that the carefully crafted Conservative budget has done it's job, it has moved the polls off the 'dead heat' mark ...

... now, the Liberals have been trending down (or have been flat) since Christmas while the Conservatives have been flat to trending up in the same period, but the Apr 15 results (polls taken after the 21 Apr 15 budget) show a marked change.

 

[observor 69]

Show me your numbers and I'll show you mine. 

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

 

[Rocky Mountains]

What you see is the conglomeration of the last 14 polls weighted by recency, size, and historical accuracy.

The last 2 polls show a Conservative lead, as do many others.

The Forum Poll of April 21/22 shows Conservatives at 35 % and the Ekos Poll of April 15/21 shows them at 32 %

The last poll showing a Liberal lead was Nanos Poll of April 17 at 34 % but that was a recent high for the Liberals.

The methodology is shown further down the page.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Show me your numbers and I'll show you mine. 

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

The barest possible majority government requires 169 seats and that means that either a) the speaker is not from the governing party; or b) if he is then one independent agrees to vote with the government. So, if the data the soon to be misnamed threehundredeight.com is using is correct then Prime Minister Harper has to keep his current best case and add at least five more seats to it. That's doable in six months but I think two things must happen:

    1. The CPC must mount a better ad campaign than they have had in the past. The sort of dirty attack ads that worked against Dion and Ignatieff are unlikely to work against M. Trudeau, who is, really, a quite likeable young man; and

    2. One of -

        a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or

        b. the CPC must find an issue/policy that really appeals to a broader cross section of Canadians, or

        c. the NDP must get its act together and mount an effective campaign against the Liberals.

 

[observor 69]

2. One of -

        a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or

                Equally it is possible that the PC's make a gaffe
 
      b. the CPC must find an issue/policy that really appeals to a broader cross section of Canadians, or

              I can't think of any major issue/policy they haven't already  made their position clear on. 

      c. the NDP must get its act together and mount an effective campaign against the Liberals.

          Aren't the Liberal and NDP platforms fundamentally so close that it leaves little room for a significant issue debate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

2. One of -

        a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or

                Equally it is possible that the PC's make a gaffe ✔
      b. the CPC must find an issue/policy that really appeals to a broader cross section of Canadians, or

              I can't think of any major issue/policy they haven't already  made their position clear on. ✔
      c. the NDP must get its act together and mount an effective campaign against the Liberals.

          Aren't the Liberal and NDP platforms fundamentally so close that it leaves little room for a significant issue debate. ?

        Have you seen anything in the way of real policy from the Liberals? I haven't. I agree the NDP is out there, like the CPC, offering policies and programmes (promises) but the Liberals? I haven't seen 'em.

 

[ModlrMike]

Some observations of mine:

1. Neither the NDP, nor especially the Liberals can form the government without winning Quebec. The Conservatives have no such limitation.

2. The Conservatives have to fight what is effectively a one front war, where the NDP and Liberals have to fight a two front war - three front if you count a potentially resurgent Bloc in Quebec.

3. The NDP and Conservatives have a decent head start in promoting their policies to the electorate. The Liberals have yet to say anything of note; save that they will reverse many of the budget initiatives that directly benefit seniors - the largest voting block.

 

[ballz]

That, is an intersting proposal ballz.  I don't know what options, if any, from the usual suspects I'll have to choose from in the next election. 

Well, I've had a look and they're not running a candidate in my riding.  Interesting party though, I'll keep an eye out for them down the road.  It still leaves me with not much of a voting choice right now.

We are adding candidates every week. There are 58 on the site, but that is a fraction of the applications we have (I won't go into specifics here) which are being processed and interviewed (its a long process that relies on a lot of volunteer work by every day people with lives that get in the way), and there is still 5-6 months until an election. I will be sure to let you know if a candidate from Halifax is announced.

But Atlantic Canada and Quebec are certainly the hardest places for us to recruit candidates. I have an easy guess as to why, but its still just a guess after all.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Thanks ballz, however, my riding is Central Nova.  I'm in Peter MacKay's territory.  I am posted (IR) to Ottawa this July, so will have to vote remotely and as such I won't be necessarily in touch with what's going on at home turf.  Please let me know if the party is running in the riding should they choose to do so this time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-plan-taxes-top-1-to-cut-taxes-boost-benefits-for-middle-class-1.3060323

Justin Trudeau has unveiled the Liberal alternative to the Harper government's economic plan: hike taxes for the wealthiest one per cent to pay for more generous child benefits and an across-the-board income tax cut for the middle class.

Under the Liberal proposal announced Monday:
■The 22-per-cent tax rate for anyone with a taxable annual income between $44,701 and $89,401 would be cut to 20.5 per cent.
■A new tax bracket of 33 per cent would be imposed on those with taxable incomes over $200,000 a year. The current top bracket of 29 per cent would continue to apply to those earning between $138,586 and $200,000.
■The Conservatives' newly enriched universal child care benefit would be replaced by rolling together two other existing child benefits into a single, more generous, monthly, tax-free "Canada child benefit."
■The Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit would be scrapped.
■The near doubling of the tax-free savings account contribution limits announced in the federal budget would be cancelled.