Federal Election 2015

Federal Election Sweeps Liberals into Majority

The Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau managed to galvanize Canadians eager for a change from nine years of Conservative rule into a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 20, 2015

A gusty, giddy wind blew through Hamilton yesterday, auguring the wind of change that blew through Canada's electorate in a dramatic conclusion to the longest, most unpleasant election campaign in Canadian living memory.

Anti-Stephen Harper poster in southwest Hamilton by artist Bob Preston
Anti-Stephen Harper poster in Southwest Hamilton by artist Bob Preston

After a 78-day campaign, during most of which the three main parties - the Conservative Party, Liberal Party and New Democratic Party - were statistically deadlocked, the Liberal Party under leader Justin Trudeau swept the country, winning 184 seats out of the recently-expanded 338 seat House of Commons for a clear majority.

Seats by Party, 2015 vs 2011
Party Seats 2015 Seats 2011 Change
Liberal 184 34 +150
Conservative 99 166 -67
NDP 44 103 -59
BQ 10 4 6
Green 1 1 0
Total 338 308

A jump in early voting - 3.6 million Canadians cast ballots over Thanksgiving weekend - carried through to election day with a big boost in voter turnout as 68 percent of eligible voters participated, up from just 61 percent in 2011.

Vote for Change

After nine years in power, the governing Conservative Party under Prime Minister Stephen Harper doubled down on fear of change, threatening that a victory for one of the other parties would potentially mean an end to the economic performance of the past decade.

This allowed the competing parties to point out that the country's economic performance has been fairly dismal, with mediocre growth and a long decline in stable, well-paying jobs. Canadians learned during the campaign that Canada is officially in a recession.

The campaign started with a buoyed NDP Official Opposition enjoying a slight edge in public opinion surveys, but that advantage steadily ebbed away as the Liberals built a head of steam, particularly in the final two weeks.

It's a mug's game trying to determine exactly what went right for the Liberals and wrong for the NDP, but Trudeau and the Liberals seem to have benefited from framing their platform as a sharper, more sweeping break from the status quo in an election driven primarily by the public's hunger for change.

The NDP tacked into the centre to assuage public fears about what a social-democratic government might do, with leader Tom Mulcair insisting that his government would neither raise taxes nor run deficits, leading observers to wonder how the party could afford to keep its campaign promises.

Meanwhile, Trudeau attacked the politics of austerity head-on, promising to run modest deficits and raise the top income tax bracket in order to invest in growth.

The NDP's base of popular support was in Quebec, which the party swept in the 2011 election to become the Official Opposition. This time around, the Conservatives exploited a divisive wedge issue by promising to appeal a Federal Court decision allowing a woman to wear a niqab during her citizenship ceremony and proposing a ban on federal employees wearing the face covering.

This position is popular in Quebec, which has a provincial policy banning women from wearing a niqab while dealing with the government, and Mulcair's principled stance in opposition to the ban cost him some support there.

Among non-partisan Canadians who were driven mainly by the desire to vote the Conservatives out, the dip in NDP polling support may have become a turning point: once it looked like the Liberals were gaining ground, voters started to conclude that they would have a better chance of beating the Conservatives, which attracted more people to support them, which further cemented their status as the party that could beat the Conservatives in a positive feedback loop.

The momentum from that feedback loop culminated in a majority win for the Liberals beyond the predictions of the survey aggregators.

Hamilton

This election changes Hamilton's political landscape, both at the federal and municipal levels. After a decade of being locked out of Hamilton ridings, the Liberals have won two seats. Former mayor Bob Bratina won Hamilton East - Stoney Creek, defeating NDP incumbent Wayne Marsten. Filomena Tassi won the new riding of Hamilton West - Ancaster - Dundas.

Incumbent Hamilton Centre MPP David Christopherson continues to hold his seat, and Scott Duvall, currently the City Councillor for Ward 7, won Hamilton Mountain for the NDP. That means the City will hold a Council by-election to fill the Central Mountain vacancy.

Conservative David Sweet won the new riding of Flamborough - Glanbrook, which contains part of his current riding of Ancaster - Dundas - Flamborough - Westdale.

Flamborough - Glanbrook
Candidate Party Votes Share
DiLivio, Mike NDP-New Democratic Party 7773 14%
Stebbing, Jennifer Liberal 21669 39.10%
Sweet, David Conservative 24136 43.50%
Urquhart, David Allan Green Party 1870 3.40%
Hamilton Centre
Candidate Party Votes Share
Anastasiou, Maria Independent 186 0.5%
Baldasaro, Michael James Radical Marijuana 348 0.8%
Christopherson, David NDP-New Democratic Party 18,722 45.6%
Rozenszajn, Yonatan Conservative 5,906 14.4%
Schmid-Jones, Ute Green Party 1,845 4.5%
Tennier, Anne Liberal 13,713 33.4%
Young, Rob Libertarian 329 0.8%
Hamilton East - Stoney Creek
Candidate Party Votes Share
Bratina, Bob Liberal 19,544 38.8%
Bubanko, Diane Conservative 12,776 25.4%
Davis, Erin Green Party 1,294 2.6%
Fields, Wendell Marxist-Leninist 79 0.2%
Mann, Bob Communist 169 0.3%
Marston, Wayne NDP-New Democratic Party 16,465 32.7%
Hamilton Mountain
Candidate Party Votes Share
Aman, Raheem Green Party 1,283 2.5%
Burt, Shaun Liberal 16,931 33.6%
Caton, Andrew James Libertarian 763 1.5%
Duvall, Scott NDP-New Democratic Party 18,046 35.8%
Enos, Jim Christian Heritage Party 438 0.9%
Miles, Al Conservative 12,986 25.7%
Hamilton West - Ancaster - Dundas
Candidate Party Votes Share
Johnstone, Alex NDP-New Democratic Party 10,144 16.2%
Ormond, Peter Green Party 2,832 4.5%
Samuel, Vincent Conservative 19,799 31.7%
Tassi, Filomena Liberal 29,698 47.5%

In Niagara West, Conservative incumbent Dean Allision won reelection with 48 percent of the vote.

Niagara West
Candidate Party Votes Share
Allison, Dean Conservative 24,732 48.70%
Frere, Sid Green Party 1,512 3%
Jonker, Harold Christian Heritage Party 1,234 2.40%
Rahman, Nameer NDP-New Democratic Party 5,805 11.40%
Rose, Phil Liberal 16,681 32.90%
de Roo, Allan Libertarian 797 1.60%

In Burlington, Liberal Karina Gould edged out incumbent Conservative Mike Wallace to win with 46 percent of the vote.

Burlington
Candidate Party Votes Share
Fiorito, Vince Green Party 1,701 2.40%
Gould, Karina Liberal 32,228 46%
Laird, David NDP-New Democratic Party 6,334 9%
Wallace, Mike Conservative 29,778 42.50%

Proportionate Representation

Once again, we must note that the allocation of seats to the various parties diverges sharply from the proportion of votes cast for each party, due to Canada's continued use of first-past-the-post vote counting.

The Liberal Party received 39.5 percent of the popular vote but secured 54.4 percent of the seats in the House of Commons, giving them a clear majority. If the number of seats they received was proportionate to their share of the vote, the Liberals would only have received 134 seats and would have to cooperate with one or more of the other parties to achieve majority support for its bills.

Vote Share and Seat Share by Party
Party % Votes Perc. Seats Prop. Seats Actual Seats Difference
Liberal 39.5% 54.4% 134 184 +50
Conservative 31.9% 29.3% 108 99 -9
NDP 19.7% 13.0% 67 44 -23
BQ 4.7% 3.0% 16 10 -6
Green 3.5% 0.3% 12 1 -11
Other 0.7% 0.0% 2 0 -2

It was the Conservatives who took advantage of this effect in the 2011 election, when they secured 54.2 percent of the seats with 39.6 percent of the votes.

The major parties have traditionally opposed changing Canada's first-past-the-post voting system, in which it is possible for a candidate to win a riding with only a plurality of votes, because it disproportionately favours mainstream parties with a small edge in votes while disproportionately hurting smaller parties.

However, the Liberal Party announced in their platform policy on open government that they intend to replace first-past-the-post system before the next election in 2019. The policy states:

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system. As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully and fairly studied and considered. This will be carried out by a special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election. Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform.

Now that they have come out as the big winners under the current system, I hope their enthusiasm to reform that system doesn't get sidelined.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

40 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 09:20:45

A vote for change.

Except in Hamilton. As usual.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:17:17 in reply to Comment 114303

Hamilton's change was guaranteed with the ridings rejiggered. Tassi and Bratina is new liberal representation here in Hamilton. Not too happy about Bratina and Duvall - they weren't my favourite people at city hall. Happy to see Johnstone soundly stomped after closing our schools and then becoming an international embarrassment after her ludicrous comments.

Permalink | Context

By changer (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 09:24:09 in reply to Comment 114303

I don't get it. Hamilton elected 2 Liberal and 2 NDP MP's, how is that not a change from the Cons?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 10:39:01 in reply to Comment 114304

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 15:05:07 in reply to Comment 114329

Like him or hate him, John Munro saved Hamilton's behind. But for him we would not have the medical school at McMaster which is presently the only thing saving this city from self-immolation. He could do that because he was a minister and had a lot of pull in cabinet. You can't do that as a Christopherson regardless of how long you have served.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 22:36:12 in reply to Comment 114342

Then be mad at the electorate who continue to vote him in. Go out, get active. Go ask the electorate, why do you keep voting in a guy who won't ever be able to help change things? What has he done for the riding in the past 10 years he's been an MP? How will his voice in the House make your life better? But complaining about it here does nothing, other than vent and make you look foolish. But we know that's not something Jason's afraid of.

Permalink | Context

By Too Much......as usual (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2015 at 12:23:49 in reply to Comment 114345

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crispy (registered) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 09:43:37

Through

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 20, 2015 at 09:50:32 in reply to Comment 114305

Arrgh, good catch. Fixed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:18:37

"The NDP's base of popular support was in Quebec, which the party swept in the 2011 election to become the Official Opposition. This time around, the Conservatives exploited a divisive wedge issue by promising to appeal a Federal Court decision allowing a woman to wear a niqab during her citizenship ceremony and proposing a ban on federal employees wearing the face covering. This position is popular in Quebec, which has a provincial policy banning women from wearing a niqab while dealing with the government, and Mulcair's principled stance in opposition to the ban cost him some support there."

More than some. 43 seats, or more than half of all NDP-held ridings. There's the feedback loop.

"...it was thanks to the Quebec vote that Trudeau will be able to form a majority government..."

montrealgazette.com/news/national/election-results-liberal-partys-long-purgatory-ends-in-quebec

Now for the prose.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:22:14

Sloppy mental math. Quebec represented *almost* half of NDP-held ridings… the party lost 51 seats in all, 43 of those in Quebec.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Matt (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:29:48

How unfortunate that our representatives in government will be Tassi and Bratina.

Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 11:57:24 in reply to Comment 114311

I know - a conservative and a doofus. Still happy Justin won though.

Permalink | Context

By Matt (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 15:54:24 in reply to Comment 114314

I'm not personally a Liberal but I don't deny there are many bright bulbs on Team Trudeau. Just not from the Hammer.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:59:12

Now that they have come out as the big winners under the current system, I hope their enthusiasm to reform that system doesn't get sidelined.

This is my big fear with the presence of a majority. The Conservatives, and now the Liberals and their corporate & media backers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by proposing wholesale changes to a system that benefits them to the exclusion of other parties.

When a swing by less than 10% of voters across the country is enough to change the result from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority, it's clear that a winner-take all first past the post system is not able to reflect the wishes of a large number of Canadians.

Further, it reinforces the idea of voting against, rather than voting for, which is what we saw in this election. While many Canadians are understandably happy with the result of Harper being out, that doesn't make the need for electoral reform any less important.

Permalink | Context

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2015 at 16:34:17 in reply to Comment 114312

"With a majority government, and with the NDP reduced to forty-four seats, the Liberals will have little incentive to follow through on many of their most generous promises. Trudeau’s pledge to end first past the post in favour of a more representative system, which would benefit smaller parties like the NDP at the expense of larger ones like the Liberals, is probably already in peril."

thewalrus.ca/no-victory-for-the-left/

Permalink | Context

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2015 at 14:57:42 in reply to Comment 114312

"An election based on proportional representation in its broadest form would have spread the power more thinly among the parties: the Liberals would drop to 135 seats, while the Conservatives would inch up from 99 to 108 and the NDP would have a much higher profile with 68 seats instead of its current 44. (Numbers are based on preliminary results and rounded.)"

news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/what-the-federal-election-would-have-looked-like-with-proportional-representation

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 09:16:02 in reply to Comment 114312

Correction: We've just seen *88* women elected MP… proportionately, almost twice as many as were elected 27 years ago.

1988 = 39 of 295 seats (13.2%)
1993 = 53 of 295 seats (17.8%)
1997 = 62 of 301 seats (20.6%)
2000 = 62 of 301 seats (20.6%)
2004 = 65 of 308 seats (21.1%)
2006 = 64 of 308 seats (20.8%)
2008 = 68 of 308 seats (22.1%)
2011 = 77 of 308 seats (25.0%)
2015 = 88 of 338 seats (26.0%)

equalvoice.ca/pdf/women_in_federal_politics_fact_sheet_march_2013.pdf

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 11:53:33 in reply to Comment 114312

Speaking of percentages, we've just seen 65 women elected MP…

1993 = 53 of 295 seats (17.8%)
1997 = 62 of 301 seats (20.6%)
2000 = 62 of 301 seats (20.6%)
2004 = 65 of 308 seats (21.1%)
2006 = 64 of 308 seats (20.8%)
2008 = 68 of 308 seats (22.1%)
2011 = 77 of 308 seats (25.0%)
2015 = 65 of 338 seats (19.2%)

equalvoice.ca/pdf/women_in_federal_politics_fact_sheet_march_2013.pdf

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted October 20, 2015 at 12:06:15

Even with the representation locally, I judge this as a net-positive for Hamilton LRT. Yes, even with Stoney Creek and Bob Bratina.

We have to remember that the Stoney Creek opposition to LRT was balanced by putting both GO and LRT in the same Liberal funding. Bob is known to be very pro-GO Transit, and he's in a riding that got the Stoney Creek LRT redirected into Stoney Creek GO. Because of that, and the LRT does not run in his riding, he would not disturb the combined GO+LRT funding.

In addition, we know that Trudeau pledged an extra $2bn to GO electrification; which could actually help Hamilton (eventually), since any enhancement of electrification all the way to Aldershot, increases the likehood of future big funding (e.g. announcement during 2020s) for GO electrification extension to Hamilton. And of course, the potential basic Gage GO station, where the City of Hamilton already owns land.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-10-20 12:32:03

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By pundit? (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 12:35:12

''It's a mug's game trying to determine exactly what went right for the Liberals'' rynan m for pundit of the year!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 20, 2015 at 16:55:51

anyonebutharper.net

If the election were held today, these are the projected seat counts based on the latest polls:

Conservative 113
Liberal 155
NDP 64
Green 1
Bloc Québecois 4
Independent 1

Do you want a change of government in the 2015 Canadian election? Vote for the strongest candidate in your riding who isn't a member of the current governing party. If all non-conservatives voted this way, the seat counts would be:

Conservative: 40
Liberal: 200
NDP: 89
Green:1
Bloc Québecois: 5
Independent: 3

(Oct 19, 2015 projections)

Reality?

Conservative: 99
Liberal: 184
NDP: 44
Green: 1
Bloc Québecois: 10






Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Balance (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 01:25:51

I can't for the life of me understand how Bratina is now an MP. I can't forget his tenure as Mayor for the City. I really hope he is just an MP with the new government and not given a portfolio. I worked at City Hall when he was elected there and was totally saddened after several meetings with him. He's great if you want to talk about the old days, Tiger Cats and model trains but didn't bring a vision or forward thinking attributes with him. His performance as Mayor was sad.

I really wish there were qualifications for politicians rather than name recognition. I don't know what else to say. Just really saddened in this regard.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NortheastWind (registered) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 12:16:19

"Trudeau unlikely to change voting system, say political scientists"

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trudeau-proportional-representation-voting-system-1.3280995

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 12:45:35 in reply to Comment 114332

From what I gather, MMPR has historically been championed by the NDP and opposed by Trudeau.

macleans.ca/politics/lets-debate-proportional-representation-again/
macleans.ca/politics/the-case-for-mixed-member-proportional-representation

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 13:23:53 in reply to Comment 114334

2000: 40.85% of popular vote yields 57.1% of seats
2004: 36.73% of popular vote yields 43.8% of seats
2006: 36.27% of popular vote yields 40.3% of seats
2008: 37.65% of popular vote yields 46.4% of seats
2011: 39.6% of popular vote yields 53.4% of seats
2015: 39.5% of popular vote yields 54.4% of seats

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 14:54:03 in reply to Comment 114336

1968: 45.37% of popular vote yields 58.33% of seats
1972: 38.42% of popular vote yields 41.28% of seats
1974: 43.15% of popular vote yields 53.41% of seats
1979: 35.89% of popular vote yields 48.22% of seats
1980: 44.34% of popular vote yields 52.12% of seats
1984: 50.03% of popular vote yields 74.82% of seats
1988: 43.02% of popular vote yields 57.28% of seats
1993: 41.24% of popular vote yields 60.00% of seats
1997: 38.46% of popular vote yields 51.49% of seats

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 14:04:23

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted October 23, 2015 at 14:30:30 in reply to Comment 114338

What arrogance? There's been arrogance on the site from time to time between commentators, and things like that, but this article wasn't one of them.

Both my NDP and Liberals friends are giddy that Harper is gone.

The Public has spoken in consistency with this article! (contrary to what you said)

There isn't Lower City versus Mountain animosity either.

Genuinely confused at your comment (unless you're a dissapointed conservative).

Permalink | Context

By LOL@LOL (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2015 at 14:34:19 in reply to Comment 114338

What the hell are you even talking about?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By transporter1 (anonymous) | Posted October 23, 2015 at 22:07:56

I never vote strategically. I vote on the issues. This time, I voted for Trudeau because of his stand on two issues that are very important to me.
He promised to legalize pot, and he promised proportional representation. Well, for quite a few other issues, too: His stand on public transportation, and the environment, to name two.
I didn't vote for Mulcair because, in part, of his stand on both of those issues: He wants to decriminalize pot, and he doesn't want pr; at least he never said he does. Plus, he wants to abolish the senate, and I want a 3E senate.
The reasons I didn't vote for Harper are too numerous to mention.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 19:16:32 in reply to Comment 114366

Re: Pot

Oct 22, 2015: "B.C. Senator Larry Campbell says prime minister-delegate Justin Trudeau should give it a year to 18 months before legalizing marijuana — to make sure it is done right. Trudeau promised to legalize marijuana across Canada 'right away', but hasn't committed to a timeline for legalization."

cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/marijuana-larry-campbell-1.3283626


Aug 21, 2015: NDP Leader Tom Mulcair pledged Thursday to decriminalize marijuana immediately if the NDP forms the next government of Canada. "I want to make sure that everybody understands that the NDP's position is decriminalization the minute we form government," Mulcair said in response to a question at a campaign event in Vancouver on Thursday. Asked why the NDP favours decriminalization as opposed to legalization, the policy favoured by the Liberals, Mulcair emphasized his party's longstanding commitment to decriminalization. "The NDP has had the same position for about 40 years," Mulcair said. "Decriminalizing marijuana is the position of the NDP, it's my position and it's something that we can do immediately."

cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.3199532

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 19:36:33 in reply to Comment 114377

Oct 13, 2015: "In a parli a men tary re port pub lished in June, the NDP pledged it would study the regu lation and lega lization of mari juana. Now the NDP lea der is going fur ther by su ggest ing legal ization is in evit able."

goo.gl/NEnAHm

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 18:37:28 in reply to Comment 114366

Re: "I voted for Trudeau because… he promised proportional representation"

December 4, 2014: "The member for Papineau has made his dislike of proportional representation known on several occasions. During the Liberal leadership race, he told a number of people attending why he did not support proportional representation, even though a substantial majority of Canadians do. Mischaracterizing proportional representation, he said, '...too many people don't understand the polarization and the micro-issues that come through proportional representation.'"

openparliament.ca/debates/2014/12/4/craig-scott-2/

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 19:19:42 in reply to Comment 114376

This would presumably problematize a 3E Senate.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 18:32:29 in reply to Comment 114366

Re: "I didn't vote for Mulcair because… he doesn't want pr; at least he never said he does"

The House of Commons has apparently debated/voted on proportional representation five times since 1923 — all of them in the last 13 years and all of them NDP initiatives (one of them moved by MP Christopherson). Trudeau voted against both the March 2011 and Dec 2014 motions related to proportional representation, as did most of his caucus colleagues.

macleans.ca/politics/lets-debate-proportional-representation-again/
macleans.ca/politics/the-case-for-mixed-member-proportional-representation/

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2015 at 19:26:43 in reply to Comment 114375

Re: "Plus, he wants to abolish the senate"

MP David Christopherson: "There are some who would argue that by going to an elected Senate, we will solve that entire problem. However, we are arguing here today that if Canadians focused on this issue, we could convince them that the best thing to do is to abolish the Senate completely and focus on bringing proportional representation to the House of Commons to more accurately reflect the political will and decisions of the Canadian people."

openparliament.ca/debates/2011/3/3/david-christopherson-1/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 24, 2015 at 12:12:18

Trudeau did not promise proportional representation. He promised electoral reform, and put a bunch of options on the table. One of which I agree with, Ranked Ballots

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 24, 2015 at 23:51:05 in reply to Comment 114371

This is a big reason why I was hoping for a minority - I liked the Liberal platform except for this front, where I preferred the NDP's more aggressive plan of MMP. MMP isn't my favourite system either, but it's the best option on the table. Instant-runoff ranked-ballots are better than our current system, but only barely. If a system isn't designed to produce proportional outcomes, I'm not really that interested in it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 29, 2015 at 12:22:54

"On 23 October 2003, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced the creation of the Democratic Renewal Secretariat, to be located within the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Secretariat intends to strengthen all aspects of democracy by: increasing the role of members of the legislature; making government more accountable; and examining democratic institutions, and in particular the electoral system....
The government held a referendum on this recommendation in conjunction with the general election of 10 October 2007. The result was to be binding if the proposed electoral system was selected in at least 60% of all the valid referendum ballots cast and in more than 50% of the valid referendum ballots cast in each of at least 64 electoral districts. However, the alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly garnered only 36.9% of the popular vote, while the existing FPTP system received 63.1% of the popular vote."

parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0417-e.htm#Ontario1

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds