Good write-up on Canada, and permit me to add a few words. And one quibble: Justin Trudeau wasn't a 'disgraced' leader, he was a tired brand name, with a failed marriage, a morale problem, and his father's penchant for hanging onto power. He had a few other flaws, but was never 'disgraced'.
His loss of appeal though, lead to a political vacuum, not a 'surge' in support for Conservatives. Huge numbers of Canadian Liberals indicated to pollsters they would 'vote conservative' while holding their noses, mostly, to get rid of a tired party leader. In other words, there was never any 'dramatic swing' to and from Poilievre, there was a return to normal among liberals, with Carney. Then, this was increased by the idiotic behavior of Donald J Trump, who even helped the Liberal Party surge in Quebec, where they hate Trump passionately.
As I put, in a short note submitted to Toronto Star today (but I think I'm on their blacklist, so it won't appear): "The suggestion that the Liberal government only squeaked into power [touted by initial press coverage] is a tad exaggerated. The Liberals face only 2 parties bent on overthrowing the elected government: the Conservatives and the Bloc québécois. Let's be honest -- both are parties founded in [regional] separatist movements, not for a united Confederation. However, big however, their combined strength is 4 seats shy of 'bringing down' the liberals in Parliament. Secondly, no NDPer in the House is going to allow that to happen. Which means that Mark Carney needs only to get the NDP cohort into [strategic alliance based on inherent goals and values] and they can sign a 'confidence' agreement, guaranteeing never to support a vote of non-confidence.
Also, the NDP is now in a crisis of identity -- because the world of 2nd-International Social Democracy has changed since they were formed in the 1960s. The best advice I'd offer (they won't listen) is to let the 7 NDPers cross the floor, and join the Liberal Party as a progressive caucus. Just like the left of the US Democrats. That would even get them 'official party' status, which they now have lost. Inside that framework, they could still communicate their own agenda, respecting the need to keep Trump-friendly, and separatist-friendly Canadian Cons out of power in Ottawa.
Hi Andrew. My comment was about 'governing', not about 'electing'.
On the topic you raise, Ranked Choice, Trudeau had promised to introduce it; Carney maintains that that's not the prerogative of a governing party or PM. It has to come as a recommendation from the federal Elections Commission, and go to Parliament for a vote.
On the substance of the idea, though, it has both pros and cons. Among the opposing arguments (that I'd make) is that Canada, being a parliamentary democracy, not what the US is now, can easily have 5-8 national parties vying for a vote on a single ballot. The average citizen can't possibly navigate that, might have ranked feelings for 2 or 3 of them, but would never rank them 1 to 8.
Therefore, balloting would be either chaotic or meaningless, with a huge banner on top of each ballot, saying "only rank the ones you KNOW ABOUT' (which can prejudice the vote) and a final computation that factors in 'no reply'.
Or, the balloting would be totally corrupted. If there were 2 big parties, one of them (Repubs the US, or Canadian Conservatives) would be mailing out their core members with an order to RANK OUR PARTY #1 and RANK [the Liberals/ Democrats] #8. Then they'd be spreading the order of ranking into the general public, at least for say, 1 to 6. So imagine millions of voters taking a partisan leaflet with them into the booth, so they can 'remember the 6 top rankings my pastor ordered us to use'. Don't imagine the Maga types wouldn't do it. Or, people would 'know' one or 2 party names, and 'rank' 6 others by how pretty or appealing they sound.
This doesn't make an election simple, fair or equitable, it makes it easy to falsify.
Also, Canada votes BY HAND, not by computer, and the count is done in-situ, by hand, and with party observers in attendance. (That raises another issue: How are 6 small parties going to staff partisan observers for the thousands of polling stations?)
In the end, the old system works and avoids litigation, corruption, and chaos.
Not impossible, but not quite how Canadian paradigms tend to work in a multi-party democracy. (They could take the strategy to the NDP national convention to authorize the move -- all very iffy).
The key element of the past 3 months is Trump threatening war and annexation on Canada, in fact, claiming it didn't exist at all. All unprecedented since 1812.
So it's a 'wartime' country now. The election wasn't about ruling Canada, it was about saving it. Who was going to do that? The Conservatives were dirty with Trumpism. Then, the man who founded the latter day Canadian Conservatives leaned into a mic 2 weeks ago to threaten secession of the Western provinces, if the country didn't elect HIS party to power.
as always detailed text, paragraph to paragraph. thank you very much mr david, informational and sharp
Good write-up on Canada, and permit me to add a few words. And one quibble: Justin Trudeau wasn't a 'disgraced' leader, he was a tired brand name, with a failed marriage, a morale problem, and his father's penchant for hanging onto power. He had a few other flaws, but was never 'disgraced'.
His loss of appeal though, lead to a political vacuum, not a 'surge' in support for Conservatives. Huge numbers of Canadian Liberals indicated to pollsters they would 'vote conservative' while holding their noses, mostly, to get rid of a tired party leader. In other words, there was never any 'dramatic swing' to and from Poilievre, there was a return to normal among liberals, with Carney. Then, this was increased by the idiotic behavior of Donald J Trump, who even helped the Liberal Party surge in Quebec, where they hate Trump passionately.
As I put, in a short note submitted to Toronto Star today (but I think I'm on their blacklist, so it won't appear): "The suggestion that the Liberal government only squeaked into power [touted by initial press coverage] is a tad exaggerated. The Liberals face only 2 parties bent on overthrowing the elected government: the Conservatives and the Bloc québécois. Let's be honest -- both are parties founded in [regional] separatist movements, not for a united Confederation. However, big however, their combined strength is 4 seats shy of 'bringing down' the liberals in Parliament. Secondly, no NDPer in the House is going to allow that to happen. Which means that Mark Carney needs only to get the NDP cohort into [strategic alliance based on inherent goals and values] and they can sign a 'confidence' agreement, guaranteeing never to support a vote of non-confidence.
Also, the NDP is now in a crisis of identity -- because the world of 2nd-International Social Democracy has changed since they were formed in the 1960s. The best advice I'd offer (they won't listen) is to let the 7 NDPers cross the floor, and join the Liberal Party as a progressive caucus. Just like the left of the US Democrats. That would even get them 'official party' status, which they now have lost. Inside that framework, they could still communicate their own agenda, respecting the need to keep Trump-friendly, and separatist-friendly Canadian Cons out of power in Ottawa.
Or, the NDP could push for some form of Ranked Choice voting; see Australia.
Hi Andrew. My comment was about 'governing', not about 'electing'.
On the topic you raise, Ranked Choice, Trudeau had promised to introduce it; Carney maintains that that's not the prerogative of a governing party or PM. It has to come as a recommendation from the federal Elections Commission, and go to Parliament for a vote.
On the substance of the idea, though, it has both pros and cons. Among the opposing arguments (that I'd make) is that Canada, being a parliamentary democracy, not what the US is now, can easily have 5-8 national parties vying for a vote on a single ballot. The average citizen can't possibly navigate that, might have ranked feelings for 2 or 3 of them, but would never rank them 1 to 8.
Therefore, balloting would be either chaotic or meaningless, with a huge banner on top of each ballot, saying "only rank the ones you KNOW ABOUT' (which can prejudice the vote) and a final computation that factors in 'no reply'.
Or, the balloting would be totally corrupted. If there were 2 big parties, one of them (Repubs the US, or Canadian Conservatives) would be mailing out their core members with an order to RANK OUR PARTY #1 and RANK [the Liberals/ Democrats] #8. Then they'd be spreading the order of ranking into the general public, at least for say, 1 to 6. So imagine millions of voters taking a partisan leaflet with them into the booth, so they can 'remember the 6 top rankings my pastor ordered us to use'. Don't imagine the Maga types wouldn't do it. Or, people would 'know' one or 2 party names, and 'rank' 6 others by how pretty or appealing they sound.
This doesn't make an election simple, fair or equitable, it makes it easy to falsify.
Also, Canada votes BY HAND, not by computer, and the count is done in-situ, by hand, and with party observers in attendance. (That raises another issue: How are 6 small parties going to staff partisan observers for the thousands of polling stations?)
In the end, the old system works and avoids litigation, corruption, and chaos.
Or call themselves ‘Independents’ but ‘caucus’ with the Libs. Maybe some US Senators could counsel them??!
Not impossible, but not quite how Canadian paradigms tend to work in a multi-party democracy. (They could take the strategy to the NDP national convention to authorize the move -- all very iffy).
The key element of the past 3 months is Trump threatening war and annexation on Canada, in fact, claiming it didn't exist at all. All unprecedented since 1812.
So it's a 'wartime' country now. The election wasn't about ruling Canada, it was about saving it. Who was going to do that? The Conservatives were dirty with Trumpism. Then, the man who founded the latter day Canadian Conservatives leaned into a mic 2 weeks ago to threaten secession of the Western provinces, if the country didn't elect HIS party to power.
That sank Poilievre (who was personally unpopular anyway) for the campaign. Also, their western-separatist premier of Alberta made similar threats. They have their feet in TrumpSand. Update: I just saw this article in Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/alberta-was-home-to-the-anti-trudeau-movement-now-it-looks-like-its-mark-carneys/article_3f6a3679-6eb2-4f76-b328-8cc9ff18b0bc.html
The NDPers, if they don't temporarily fuse with the Liberals are better to urge another strategy: a United Front Coalition -- example, France?