• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Canada's having a federal election.

I don't think you know what gerrymandering is. Hint - it's not this.

Disconnect between how many votes a party has vs. how many seats they end up getting is at the core of gerrymandering.

I do not know how riding boundaries are determined in Canada, but the effect of the current map is such a disconnect.
 
It looks like NDP (the one with the guy in turban) would be enough to comfortably support Trudeau.

You mean Mr. Singh. I've met him. He's a pretty cool guy and his party, though a bit too in bed with unions for my liking, has most of the right ideas on most issues in Canada. I didn't vote for him, but I'd be quite content with him as prime minister.
 
I don't think you know what gerrymandering is. Hint - it's not this.

Disconnect between how many votes a party has vs. how many seats they end up getting is at the core of gerrymandering.

I do not know how riding boundaries are determined in Canada, but the effect of the current map is such a disconnect.

No. That’s not how gerrymandering works. Words have meaning. Your post is like saying that Alabama always votes GOP and Vermont always votes Dem, therefore both states are gerrymandered. Neither of those things is the result of gerrymandering.

The Conservatives won some areas of the country with 70% support and the Liberals won a large number of close races. It’s not because political interference rigged the various areas to have them come out that way, which is what gerrymandering is, but because that’s the way it turned out in the non-partisan designed districts.
 
I don't think you know what gerrymandering is. Hint - it's not this.

Disconnect between how many votes a party has vs. how many seats they end up getting is at the core of gerrymandering.

I do not know how riding boundaries are determined in Canada, but the effect of the current map is such a disconnect.

No. That’s not how gerrymandering works. Words have meaning. Your post is like saying that Alabama always votes GOP and Vermont always votes Dem, therefore both states are gerrymandered. Neither of those things is the result of gerrymandering.

The Conservatives won some areas of the country with 70% support and the Liberals won a large number of close races. It’s not because political interference rigged the various areas to have them come out that way, which is what gerrymandering is, but because that’s the way it turned out in the non-partisan designed districts.
Yeah, Derec doesn't seem to care to look at the actual results, such as noting the Liberals were annihlated in Saskatchewan and Alberta, getting less than 15% of the vote! Saskatchewan (which I can spell on the first try ;)) isn't a big deal but Alberta actually has population. That province alone, and how they were very angry at the Libs over the energy policy is the reason for the popular vote victory for the Conservatives but seat majority for the Liberals.
 
I do not know how riding boundaries are determined in Canada,

In general, an independent commission looks at the decennial census data and adjusts electoral districts to make sure each one represents approximately the same number of people (with some exceptional cases such as the territories which each get a minimum of one seat). The last major adjustment was in 2012 (based on the 2011 census) while we had a Conservative majority in the lower house. The Liberals weren't even the official opposition at the time.

but the effect of the current map is such a disconnect.

Perhaps not entirely impossible, but improbable. Certainly not the most likely explanation. The elections results map is not evidence of gerrymandering on its own.
 
Actually, this election is going to be a hard-fought tie, what the Brits call a hung Parliament and what we call a Minority Government.
It will be a Liberal coalition with the NDP and the Greens supporting them. We'll actually be tending more left and progressive than with just the Liberal Party because left to themselves, they are nothing more than Conservative Lite.

Arguably, Canada's greatest Parliament (s) were Lester Pearson's two back-to-back minority governments supported by Tommy Douglas' NDP and which gave us modern Canada. It gave us a new flag (well, OK, NBD), free and universal and free medicare (!!), kept us out of the Vietnam War, student loans (a radical idea at the time), and the Canada Pension Plan (over and above Old Age Pension). It de facto abolished capital punishment by restricting its use to a very few offenses for which it was never used prior to being abolished altogether.

Alas, Justin Trudeau is no Lester Pearson, but we'll see what we can do with the material at hand.

And Jagmeet Singh is no Tommy Douglas. In my 40+ years of voting in Canadian elections, this was the first time in which I felt at least somewhat nauseated by each and every choice.
 
I was the opposite. They are all "meh" to me, but none of them nauseate me. Well Bernier does, so that's one I guess, but he was no factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom