this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
95 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

8181 readers
2812 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The plummeting poll numbers for Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals might not seem as dire if Canada had adopted a new voting system.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] psvrh 57 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The problem is that, should they implement electoral reform, it would mean no more Liberal majorities ever.

They're okay with swapping seats with the Conservatives every few years, but having to cooperate with the NDP every day forever, and dragging Canadian politics leftward to meet the actual needs of the electorate, is a non-starter for the Calgary and Laurentian cheque-writers that underpin both the LPC and CPC.

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo 16 points 1 year ago

I suspect it would result in permanent minorities, and the growth of smaller, more local parties. I'm no political scientist, but as far as I can tell, formalized political parties are just magnets for corruption and consolidation of power that's for sale to anyone with a fistfull of disposable cash.

[–] ILikeBoobies 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Libs are closer to the Cons than they are the NDP

[–] FunderPants 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This isn't true at all. Liberals are much closer to social democrats than they are to fiscal and social conservatism.

[–] ILikeBoobies 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are fiscally conservative not just close

[–] FunderPants 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No, the Liberal Party is fiscally liberal, not fiscally conservative. While both philosophies think a market economy is the best economic system, a fiscal liberal is more inclined to use fiscal policy to intervene in that market economy to rectify social or economic inequalities. This would be entirely counter to fiscal conservatism.

For example, a fiscal liberal will support a public health system, a public broadcaster, $10 a day childcare, and EV / electrification/greening grants.

A fiscal conservative will be more laissez faire, and not want any of those things.

I bring this up because by not recognizing the difference we set ourselves up to put conservatives back into power, after all , β€œboth sides same”.

Now social democrats (of which many in the NDP are) tend towards mixed-economy, social-liberalism. This philosophy contains the main body of New Democrats and a contingent of LPC (the left-liberals, social liberals). It's why we can see progress on nationalized programs under LPC-NDP governments. The NDP has a true democratic socialist rump too, but they have much fewer areas of true overlap with Liberal philosophy.

[–] ILikeBoobies 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Public health/daycare

NDP

public broadcaster

Cons want this as well, but they want it to favour them

EV / electrification/greening grants.

Cons give grants to oil/gas, you’re confusing energy grants (economic) with climate change (social)

[–] anonymoose 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought the cons wanted to abolish the CBC?

[–] psvrh 2 points 1 year ago

They want to talk about abolishing the CBC, but if they did they'd lose their whipping boy. If they really cared, they'd also be talking about defunding RCI, but they're too chickenshit to take that on because Quebecois conservatives like it, while their Alberta base hates the CBC because...reasons.

[–] ILikeBoobies 1 points 1 year ago

Only for being non-biased

[–] FunderPants 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I'm not confused. You seem married to some fairly unsophisticated ideas about political philosophy, and I'm no divorce lawyer. Sorry to waste your time.

[–] ILikeBoobies 2 points 1 year ago

Your argument of giving grants to energy sure

But then the Cons also give grants to energy

So if you want to say they are both fiscally liberal then youve made a point but I think it is meaningless

[–] psvrh 2 points 1 year ago

This would be entirely counter to fiscal conservatism

Good thing that the Conservatives and Liberals are both...neoliberals, then.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most governments have formed with a minority for the past couple of decades. It's already the reality.

But you're right that they wouldn't want to formalize it.

[–] psvrh 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a difference between "formed with a minority" and "no chance at a majority ever again".

The LPC (and CPC) are quite happy with the current system. The LPC would accept AFV or ranked-ballot, but only because they're everyone's second choice, where the Conservatives are the first choice of ~35% of the population, but almost no one's second.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Bingo. The LPC and the CPC are two sides of the same neoliberal coin.

For all the people arguing for a third party option in the US, this is why it won't work. The two main parties will be happy to trade roles every few years and maintain the overall status quo.