@mpjgregoire

Hypocritical manipulation such as that wouldn't work, IMO. Liberals, given their lack of a concrete stand on most things, are the masters of such manipulation; so, trying to outdo them in that same vein (aiming to control and/or create a vote split) would likely fail. Parties that actually stand for something have a harder time with such "strategic" manipulation.

I feel that eliminating the need to even consider such hypocrisy (IE, 'What can I do to help the NDP today?'") is what's needed. The way to do that is to have an electoral system that does not split the vote. That would be a hybrid system of proportional representation (where ridings are maintained, but the results more accurately represent the vote).

That way, there's no need to worry about appeasing factions (as Kenney talked about) or modifying parties / ideologies into a "big tent" Both Reform and Progressive Conservative parties could exist, and, in a more proportional system, they would NOT split each others vote. Then, it would be easier for different conservative factions to get a majority of the votes and form government together.

@markgrieveson
1. ??? But it does work. Surely you've noticed that #PCPO has won many elections in Ontario despite the combined vote of the Liberals and the NDP being greater.

2. It's not hypocrisy, it's strategy. Often in life you support the enemy of your greater enemy, even if you have little in common.

3. Conservatives in Canada want split votes between the Liberals and the NDP. Otherwise it would be rare to see any of the policies they believe would benefit the country enacted.

1/2

@markgrieveson

4. Given a diversity of political views, we must have coalitions between factions to form a government. The question is, should we have big tent parties that are esssentially coalitions formed before the election, or a coalition of small parties that’s formed after the election? As a voter, I prefer the former, since it is more likely to present a comprehensive platform and to be able to enact it. In the latter case, I can't predict what compromises my vote might lead to.
2/2

@mpjgregoire

I prefer the latter. It gives me a chance to vote for my interests. And gives more people a chance to vote for their interests. Greater involvement of people results. The former results in a more limited focus (often on swing ridings).

Promoting a party or ideals one doesn't agree with is not strategy. It's a bonkers by-product of a broken system.

Regarding what works: it's hard to say what the results of a hybrid proportional system would be. But the idea that parties need to overcome "voter efficiency" of other parties is nuts. In 2021 the CPC had more votes but received 41 less seats than the LPC. And looking at Germany or New Zealand, we see that the right rather than left or centrists do better. There, right leaning coalitions generally are in power at least half the time, rather than a measly quarter of the time --> which is the case for Canada's Conservative and Progressive Conservative parties.

Different factions, such as Reform, Progressive Conservative, (and PPC), running honest campaigns without vote splitting worries, would attract more votes than does an attempt at a right leaning unified "big tent" party. And, I feel the stand for nothing Liberals would lose votes in a system where vote splitting was not a worry.

@markgrieveson Would you agree with me that the alternation of parties in power is healthy for a parliamentary system? That, regardless of what one thinks of their ideology, it's bad that in Alberta a single party tends to govern for decades before it is replaced?

I suspect that, if the Canadian federal government were to adopt a PR system, the result would be less like Germany and more like Japan, with a single party staying in power for uninterrupted decades, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_System .

@mpjgregoire

What's healthy is a system where an actual majority is determined by the electorate. Coyne spoke of this awhile back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzcx-6gdaV0

@markgrieveson I think the tendency to give majority government power and responsibility to the party that wins the most votes is one of the virtues of #FPTP; it's a feature, not a bug.

Thanks for sharing the link. I respect Mr. Coyne, and I've read him make arguments in favour of PR before. I'll watch the try to video when I have time.

#ElectoralReform

@mpjgregoire

Parties with the most votes should get the most seats. As I mentioned, sometimes the opposite happens in FPTP. Representative government of the majority of votes is the ideal of democracy. That rarely happens in FPTP. It's usually a plurality, heavily favouring Liberals who win seats in the East over Conservatives who win more in the West. From this sometimes Liberals are wrongly given majority mandates.

Back to the video of Teneycke stating "what can I do today to help the NDP", again, that bizarre statement comes solely from the oddities of vote splits (a feature of FPTP). Lewis' NDP and Poilievre's conservatives are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Many who supported Charest, like DeLorey, in the leadership race felt Poilievre was too conservative. And yet his straight forward style did very well, rather than what some limp noodle like Charest would have done. People want honesty, not "strategy".

The idea of needing to be divorced from ideals ("what can I do to help the NDP") and present a more butterball offering to people, due to the flawed system of FPTP, only disenchants people.

@markgrieveson
1. In the 2004 NHL Eastern Conference Finals, Tampa Bay won four games, vs. three for New Jersey; but overall the Devils outscored the Lightning, 23 to 21. Is it unfair that Tampa Bay won the series? No, because we decide the victor of an NHL playoff series based on the number of games won, not the number of goals. Similarly, it's not unfair when the Liberals win more seats despite the #CPC winning more votes; it's just how the rules work.

1/3

#ElectoralReform #FPTP

@markgrieveson
We could have different rules, and there'd be advantages and disadvantages in doing so, but the current rules are not "unfair".

2. What I most liked about Mr. Poilievre for the leadership was how he saw the problems many Canadians faced (e.g., the housing crisis), and he spoke to them. Mr. Charest, on the other hand, had the advantage of experience and not being considered obnoxious by many Canadians...

2/3

#CanPol #cdnpoli