Playoff Hockey

[33 IMP]

I did, but I doubt it. He'll do whatever he can to hang onto power as long as he can, living high on the taxpayer dime. Only the Libs or Dippers can remove the tyrant, and none of them have the courage. Would that it could be, though...as a narcissist, he's simply incapable of recognizing most of the nation hates him and wants him out. It just doesn't compute. He truly believes he and only he can save us from the messes...that he created.

I haven't seen the news. Is the guy that won almost a third of the popular vote in trouble (finally)?

 

[Coelacanth]

I haven't seen the news. Is the guy that won almost a third of the popular vote in trouble (finally)?

Conservatives take Toronto-St. Paul’s riding in major upset for Liberals

The Libs' response? 'We are listening and hear Canadians' concerns and will regroup...' Mmmkay.

 

[RemCharger]

Conservatives take Toronto-St. Paul’s riding in major upset for Liberals

The Libs' response? 'We are listening and hear Canadians' concerns and will regroup...' Mmmkay.

That didn't work for me without a subscription how about this
'Not the result we wanted': Trudeau responds after surprise Conservative byelection win in Liberal stronghold

 

[Coelacanth]

That didn't work for me without a subscription how about this
'Not the result we wanted': Trudeau responds after surprise Conservative byelection win in Liberal stronghold

Weird, I don't have a subscription either...the first time I clicked it, I could read the whole article. The second time...it didn't display again. Thanks for the second link!

 

[33 IMP]

Thanks to both of you. I actually saw the first link Coelacanth put up.
Looks like the common sense pendulum might be swinging back the other way? (Finally!)
I'm a typical Californian, I don't understand Canadian politics. How could trudont become primo minister with 30% of pop vote? (Even tho my mom was born Canadian).

 

[Coelacanth]

Thanks to both of you. I actually saw the first link Coelacanth put up.
Looks like the common sense pendulum might be swinging back the other way? (Finally!)
I'm a typical Californian, I don't understand Canadian politics. How could trudont become primo minister with 30% of pop vote? (Even tho my mom was born Canadian).

We have an electoral system that is flawed at best. The party that wins is the one that won the most seats. The number of seats in any province is roughly based on populations in ridings, or neighborhoods, to put it simply. However, the number of ridings to be won is much more highly concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. Over-represented compared to provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta. It's called "first past the post" elections, where the winner is all but determined after QC and ON are done voting, the rest of Canada, and especially the west, have very little influence on the results. Trudeau promised to change this system when he got elected in 2015, but did nothing as the situation benefits the Liberal party.

Not even a third of Canadians voted Liberal; the rest voted Conservative (a higher percentage than the Libs) and other parties, including the NDP. So, the majority of voters voted Conservative, but the Liberals won in more ridings and therefore won more seats, and that's how our PM got elected.

What made everything worse is we have a #3 party that formed a coalition with the Libs, so the 2 groups would have just enough representation in parliament to form a slight majority, and has supported the Libs through thick and thin, scandal after scandal, because the NDP leader gets a $2 million pension if he stays on until the next election in 2025. He has betrayed his voter base as few of them are happy with the government. Nobody voted for this coalition, but we are all paying dearly for it.

There you have it in a nutshell.

Compared to the USA, I kind of wish we had only 2 parties like Americans do, instead of the vote-splitting mess and coalitions that can form up north here, with at least a half-dozen parties that can influence the final vote to some degree.

 

[33 IMP]

We have an electoral system that is flawed at best. The party that wins is the one that won the most seats. The number of seats in any province is roughly based on populations in ridings, or neighborhoods, to put it simply. However, the number of ridings to be won is much more highly concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. Over-represented compared to provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta. It's called "first past the post" elections, where the winner is all but determined after QC and ON are done voting, the rest of Canada, and especially the west, have very little influence on the results. Trudeau promised to change this system when he got elected in 2015, but did nothing as the situation benefits the Liberal party.

Not even a third of Canadians voted Liberal; the rest voted Conservative (a higher percentage than the Libs) and other parties, including the NDP. So, the majority of voters voted Conservative, but the Liberals won in more ridings and therefore won more seats, and that's how our PM got elected.

What made everything worse is we have a #3 party that formed a coalition with the Libs, so the 2 groups would have just enough representation in parliament to form a slight majority, and has supported the Libs through thick and thin, scandal after scandal, because the NDP leader gets a $2 million pension if he stays on until the next election in 2025. He has betrayed his voter base as few of them are happy with the government. Nobody voted for this coalition, but we are all paying dearly for it.

There you have it in a nutshell.

Compared to the USA, I kind of wish we had only 2 parties like Americans do, instead of the vote-splitting mess and coalitions that can form up north here, with at least a half-dozen parties that can influence the final vote to some degree.

THANK YOU SIR!! Clear and concise explanation. We have a similar problem in that the major population centers across the U.S. seem to control the vote. Not everybody in california is an idiot liberal, but there are enough of them in Sacramento, San Francisco, and L.A. to enslave the rest of us to this foolishness.
Edit. Sorry moderators. Veering very close to the political forum.
Now, ....back to hockey.
Congrats to both teams in the cup finals! A very interesting series!

 

[Coelacanth]

THANK YOU SIR!! Clear and concise explanation. We have a similar problem in that the major population centers across the U.S. seem to control the vote. Not everybody in california is an idiot liberal, but there are enough of them in Sacramento, San Francisco, and L.A. to enslave the rest of us to this foolishness.
Edit. Sorry moderators. Veering very close to the political forum.
Now, ....back to hockey.
Congrats to both teams in the cup finals! A very interesting series!

In the US, the President is chosen by the total number of majority votes, right? So regardless of location, if more than half the population vote one way, that party wins? I wish that were the case here. I do believe that major population centers should have the most voting influence, but the system of ridings we have in Canada can result in the strange situation we've had the last 2 elections where the winner had significantly less of the total vote numbers than the "losing" party.

 

[33 IMP]

In the US, the President is chosen by the total number of majority votes, right? So regardless of location, if more than half the population vote one way, that party wins? I wish that were the case here. I do believe that major population centers should have the most voting influence, but the system of ridings we have in Canada can result in the strange situation we've had the last 2 elections where the winner had significantly less of the total vote numbers than the "losing" party.

No, a candidate can lose popular vote and still win. (George W. Bush supposedly lost pop vote, to Gore). Electoral votes determine who wins. That how we have "swing states". A candidate can win massive vote totals in states like New York and California, but only earn so many electoral votes assigned to each state, by population, but be overwhelmed by electoral votes earned in a multitude of smaller population states.
That is why there is a push, by democrats, to eliminate the electoral college.

 

[WileE]

In the US, the President is chosen by the total number of majority votes, right? So regardless of location, if more than half the population vote one way, that party wins? I wish that were the case here. I do believe that major population centers should have the most voting influence, but the system of ridings we have in Canada can result in the strange situation we've had the last 2 elections where the winner had significantly less of the total vote numbers than the "losing" party.

No, that's incorrect. Simplified, the president and vice president of the United States are elected by the Electoral College, which consists of 538 electors from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. The winner must have a certain number of electoral votes. I strongly disagree that major population centers should have more influence.

 

[Coelacanth]

Thanks, I don't follow US politics too much but I still think your system of having only 2 parties probably works better than our system. And we have the complicating factor of the province of Quebec, due to their big population and large number of ridings, and a political party all their own--the Bloc Quebecois, whom ONLY Quebec people can vote for--can have a strong representation in parliament and have a say on many bills that apply to the whole of Canada...even though the party should only represent Quebec. Our democratic system is anything but, to be honest.