• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CTV News declares Liberal minority

It has been a long time since a Canadian Prime Minister won the popular vote.
2004 Paul Martin 36.7% minority
2006 Stephen Harper 36.3% minority
2008 Stephen Harper 37.7% minority
2011 Stephen Harper 39.6% majority
2015 Justin Trudeau 39.5% majority
2019 Justin Trudeau 33.1% minority

Loss of the popular vote in this case means another political party had more of the vote than he did.

But yes, no one has had a real mandate in Canada for a long, long time; it is one of the most egregious flaws of our democracy that less than 30% of the population routinely dictates the next 5 years for the 70%+ remainder; one we got to retain thanks to Trudeau.

That said, a party that went from a majority to a minority and had less of the popular vote than its chief rival has exactly zero claim to being the choice or voice of Canadians.
 
Loss of the popular vote in this case means another political party had more of the vote than he did.

But yes, no one has had a real mandate in Canada for a long, long time; it is one of the most egregious flaws of our democracy that less than 30% of the population routinely dictates the next 5 years for the 70%+ remainder; one we got to retain thanks to Trudeau.

That said, a party that went from a majority to a minority and had less of the popular vote than its chief rival has exactly zero claim to being the choice or voice of Canadians.

It is hard to disagree with that last statement. Because of that I think any new legislation must either have the support of the Conservatives, Or both the NDP and the Greens. At least with either of those scenarios he surpasses the 50% representation mark.
 
I was watching a Youtube stream and some guy that had been in the position since the 70s lost, and the commentator said how it was sad and unhealthy. I don't understand what is unhealthy about this but that's my big takeaway...

Step One, stop taking what some moron with an YouTube account as being a source of Anything valid. You're Welcome.
 
Step One, stop taking what some moron with an YouTube account as being a source of Anything valid. You're Welcome.

It was from one of the big Canadian news companies, not some random Youtube account.
 
It has been a long time since a Canadian Prime Minister won the popular vote.
2004 Paul Martin 36.7% minority
2006 Stephen Harper 36.3% minority
2008 Stephen Harper 37.7% minority
2011 Stephen Harper 39.6% majority
2015 Justin Trudeau 39.5% majority
2019 Justin Trudeau 33.1% minority

This comment, with all due respect, makes absolutely no sense. In the Canadian system, with at least three parties running candidates in every election and often four or five parties, a Canadian Prime Minister wins a majority government almost every time his/her party receives 38.5% of the vote or higher. In all such cases, the Prime Minister has won the popular vote. They have not won a majority of the entire electorate, but that would be unheard of in Canadian politics.

Monday's vote, for the first time in my recollection, showed the party that won the most seats in the House not winning the popular vote. But that matters little.

In my view, the only clear outcome of Monday's vote is that about 33% of the voting public, who consider themselves "Progressives", are actually just hypocrites. When the voting public has, in effect, three Progressive parties and a large swath of those progressives vote to re-elect scum like Justin Trudeau, you know they are nothing but political partisan hacks. They vote their "party". If Hitler was the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, he'd still likely get upwards of 30% of the vote because he's a Liberal. When you have two other parties, the New Democrats and the Greens, who are both progressive parties with honorable people as leaders and you vote for Justin Trudeau, you've shown who you really are and it's not pretty.

True progressives, with even an ounce of integrity and respect for themselves and their vote, would have selected either the New Democrat or the Green candidate in their riding if only to do nothing else but send a strong message to the Liberal Party of Canada that leadership like Justin Trudeau's would not be tolerated by fair minded, decent people.
 
This comment, with all due respect, makes absolutely no sense. In the Canadian system, with at least three parties running candidates in every election and often four or five parties, a Canadian Prime Minister wins a majority government almost every time his/her party receives 38.5% of the vote or higher. In all such cases, the Prime Minister has won the popular vote. They have not won a majority of the entire electorate, but that would be unheard of in Canadian politics.

Monday's vote, for the first time in my recollection, showed the party that won the most seats in the House not winning the popular vote. But that matters little.

In my view, the only clear outcome of Monday's vote is that about 33% of the voting public, who consider themselves "Progressives", are actually just hypocrites. When the voting public has, in effect, three Progressive parties and a large swath of those progressives vote to re-elect scum like Justin Trudeau, you know they are nothing but political partisan hacks. They vote their "party". If Hitler was the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, he'd still likely get upwards of 30% of the vote because he's a Liberal. When you have two other parties, the New Democrats and the Greens, who are both progressive parties with honorable people as leaders and you vote for Justin Trudeau, you've shown who you really are and it's not pretty.

True progressives, with even an ounce of integrity and respect for themselves and their vote, would have selected either the New Democrat or the Green candidate in their riding if only to do nothing else but send a strong message to the Liberal Party of Canada that leadership like Justin Trudeau's would not be tolerated by fair minded, decent people.

I would accept your critique if not for the fact that you supported Harper, regardless of his transgressions against fair minded folks who support a free country.

Our system allows those with a majority the ability to pass legislation that is not in the common good. Harper hid his garbage in omnibus budget bills. Chretien did the same.

With our current system we are all served best with a minority government. I could accept an argument that because most parties are left leaning, a Conservative majority would be best.

In all honesty if you want braod support for a conservative leader, get away from the social issues. Promote fiscally responsible initiatives that also serve us well internationally.

If a party leader is unable to grasp the fact that Canadians, as a whole, want to be socially responsible, fiscally responsible, and be able to contribute internationally, then that leader will have a hard time getting a majority.

A platform that best balances these three things is a platform that will win.
 
This comment, with all due respect, makes absolutely no sense. In the Canadian system, with at least three parties running candidates in every election and often four or five parties, a Canadian Prime Minister wins a majority government almost every time his/her party receives 38.5% of the vote or higher. In all such cases, the Prime Minister has won the popular vote. They have not won a majority of the entire electorate, but that would be unheard of in Canadian politics.

Monday's vote, for the first time in my recollection, showed the party that won the most seats in the House not winning the popular vote. But that matters little.

In my view, the only clear outcome of Monday's vote is that about 33% of the voting public, who consider themselves "Progressives", are actually just hypocrites. When the voting public has, in effect, three Progressive parties and a large swath of those progressives vote to re-elect scum like Justin Trudeau, you know they are nothing but political partisan hacks. They vote their "party". If Hitler was the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, he'd still likely get upwards of 30% of the vote because he's a Liberal. When you have two other parties, the New Democrats and the Greens, who are both progressive parties with honorable people as leaders and you vote for Justin Trudeau, you've shown who you really are and it's not pretty.

True progressives, with even an ounce of integrity and respect for themselves and their vote, would have selected either the New Democrat or the Green candidate in their riding if only to do nothing else but send a strong message to the Liberal Party of Canada that leadership like Justin Trudeau's would not be tolerated by fair minded, decent people.

I mean when the alternative scum is Sheer, I can understand their apprehension.

Personally I voted NDP because my riding was going Liberal anyways, but were I forced to, I would have held my nose and voted strategically, as FPTP requires, to keep the Cons out. As odious as Trudeau is, I never liked the Conservative agenda, and I never will, and ever since they eliminated the public vote subsidy under the Harper majority in a naked, and thus far largely successful attempt to starve the political left of funds, and Americanize/plutocratize our politics by making our parties beholden to and dependent on private donors, it became more than abundantly clear to me that they should never be given power.

Since you seem to be a supporter of voting one's conscience, I can only assume you'd support something like proportional representation, even though this would mean that the centre and left would have well over half the popular vote and thus half the seats in virtual perpetuity and the Cons would probably never win another majority government or even be able to form a viable minority government ever again?
 
Last edited:
I would accept your critique if not for the fact that you supported Harper, regardless of his transgressions against fair minded folks who support a free country.

Our system allows those with a majority the ability to pass legislation that is not in the common good. Harper hid his garbage in omnibus budget bills. Chretien did the same.

With our current system we are all served best with a minority government. I could accept an argument that because most parties are left leaning, a Conservative majority would be best.

In all honesty if you want braod support for a conservative leader, get away from the social issues. Promote fiscally responsible initiatives that also serve us well internationally.

If a party leader is unable to grasp the fact that Canadians, as a whole, want to be socially responsible, fiscally responsible, and be able to contribute internationally, then that leader will have a hard time getting a majority.

A platform that best balances these three things is a platform that will win.

Modern conservatives never run on social issues and the Scheer conservatives didn't either. But, of course, the dishonest Trudeau liberals tried and perhaps succeeded in making settled social issues relevant to some in this campaign.

Canadians, by and large, are like me - socially liberal and fiscally conservative. No party on the left even remotely resembles fiscal conservatism. Every party on the left, at least here in Canada, believes that average citizens are unable to live their own lives and must have government, particularly liberal government control all aspects of life from birth to death. Unfortunately, for far too many, government interference and beggaring of the populace has almost made this come true and for far too many they will happily allow government to take all their money through taxation and then dole it back to them, hopefully, with more valuable services. It's a self-fulfilling ideology. And pretty soon, Canada will be so bankrupted by liberal rule that all will live to serve the debt of those who lived before them.

Minority government, with two or more fiscally irresponsible leftist parties in control, is the most damaging for Canada at any time but particularly after 4 years of liberal waste and heading into what may be a world wide recession in the not too distant future.
 
I mean when the alternative scum is Sheer, I can understand their apprehension.

Personally I voted NDP because my riding was going Liberal anyways, but were I forced to, I would have held my nose and voted strategically, as FPTP requires, to keep the Cons out. As odious as Trudeau is, I never liked the Conservative agenda, and I never will, and ever since they eliminated the public vote subsidy under the Harper majority in a naked, and thus far largely successful attempt to starve the political left of funds, and Americanize/plutocratize our politics by making our parties beholden to and dependent on private donors, it became more than abundantly clear to me that they should never be given power.

Since you seem to be a supporter of voting one's conscience, I can only assume you'd support something like proportional representation, even though this would mean that the centre and left would have well over half the popular vote and thus half the seats in virtual perpetuity and the Cons would probably never win another majority government or even be able to form a viable minority government ever again?

Firstly, your assumption would be wrong - there is nothing wrong with our first past the post electoral democracy that has served Canada well for 150 years. Only those on the fringes want proportional representation so that minority views may be able to **** up the workings of our democracy.

Secondly, you must be a unionist since you think that the public, in general, should be forced to financially support political parties and politicians. That is truly in the spirit of union leadership raping union coffers to fund their chosen leftist political parties and candidates irrespective of what their union membership may want.

Finally, you may dislike Andrew Scheer because of the party and the policies he represents but I defy you to expand on how Scheer, personally, is scum. Justin Trudeau has clearly shown who and what he is - the sexual grope of a young female reporter, the multiple incidents of blackface with no recollection of how many times that may have occurred, the attempts to manipulate justice in the SNC Lavalin and Mark Norman cases, the ousting of two strong female voices from his caucus for calling him out on his corruption, and the two times he was cited for breaking the conflict of interest laws, to name just a few.
 
Firstly, your assumption would be wrong - there is nothing wrong with our first past the post electoral democracy that has served Canada well for 150 years. Only those on the fringes want proportional representation so that minority views may be able to **** up the workings of our democracy.

To be clear, I was being sarcastic: of course you wouldn't support PR because it would mean the Conservatives would never hold power federally ever again, as they virtually never have more than 25% support of the population, and 40% support of actual electors, just as you don't actually care about the left voting their conscience so much as you do about them acting in a way that would accord the Conservatives power.

Further, while fringe parties may have slightly more power, the idea that PR opens the door wide open for them to influence electoral politics is a fallacy that simply isn't borne out by the facts. The specific system of proportional representation per the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform was essentially that of Germany which generally has yet to experience problems with anything of the sort, particularly given their minimum 5% votation threshold required to hold seats.

Lastly, FPTP is fatally flawed when it routinely allows 25% of the population and 35% of the electorate to dictate the future of Canada for 5 years for the super majority remainder.

Secondly, you must be a unionist since you think that the public, in general, should be forced to financially support political parties and politicians. That is truly in the spirit of union leadership raping union coffers to fund their chosen leftist political parties and candidates irrespective of what their union membership may want.

No, I'm someone who recognizes the danger of an Americanized system that leads to de facto plutocracy as per the United States: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I do not wish to see Canada reduced to the rule of magnates and the well-heeled as is clearly the case in the States due to their lack of contribution limits, almost unchecked lobbying and complete dependence on private political donations. The objective of Harper was only ever to marginalize and disempower his political rivals, crush dissent to the utmost extent possible, and allot even more political power and influence to his wealthy sponsors. To be fair, Trudeau followed suit and failed to repeat the public vote subsidy as he too would like to see the NDP and Green effectively starved and destroyed in order to consolidate the left under his banner.

Finally, you may dislike Andrew Scheer because of the party and the policies he represents but I defy you to expand on how Scheer, personally, is scum. Justin Trudeau has clearly shown who and what he is - the sexual grope of a young female reporter, the multiple incidents of blackface with no recollection of how many times that may have occurred, the attempts to manipulate justice in the SNC Lavalin and Mark Norman cases, the ousting of two strong female voices from his caucus for calling him out on his corruption, and the two times he was cited for breaking the conflict of interest laws, to name just a few.

What Andrew Scheer supports, and the Conservative's traditional lot as being the mouthpiece of the rich and powerful makes him scum in my eyes. To be clear though, Trudeau is also obviously scum, but my reservations about him are diminished due to him A: being held in check by a minority government and B: having his obvious arrogance and hubris checked by his recent electoral losses.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, your assumption would be wrong - there is nothing wrong with our first past the post electoral democracy that has served Canada well for 150 years. Only those on the fringes want proportional representation so that minority views may be able to **** up the workings of our democracy.

Secondly, you must be a unionist since you think that the public, in general, should be forced to financially support political parties and politicians. That is truly in the spirit of union leadership raping union coffers to fund their chosen leftist political parties and candidates irrespective of what their union membership may want.

Finally, you may dislike Andrew Scheer because of the party and the policies he represents but I defy you to expand on how Scheer, personally, is scum. Justin Trudeau has clearly shown who and what he is - the sexual grope of a young female reporter, the multiple incidents of blackface with no recollection of how many times that may have occurred, the attempts to manipulate justice in the SNC Lavalin and Mark Norman cases, the ousting of two strong female voices from his caucus for calling him out on his corruption, and the two times he was cited for breaking the conflict of interest laws, to name just a few.


I would say it is not a democracy when significantly less then 50% of the voting population gets to have 100% of the control of the government. Regardless of it being Liberal or Conservative. First past the post is a horrible system, if not using Proportional representation then the French system of run off's until the candidate receives 50%+1 should be in order
 
Modern conservatives never run on social issues and the Scheer conservatives didn't either. But, of course, the dishonest Trudeau liberals tried and perhaps succeeded in making settled social issues relevant to some in this campaign.

Canadians, by and large, are like me - socially liberal and fiscally conservative. No party on the left even remotely resembles fiscal conservatism. Every party on the left, at least here in Canada, believes that average citizens are unable to live their own lives and must have government, particularly liberal government control all aspects of life from birth to death. Unfortunately, for far too many, government interference and beggaring of the populace has almost made this come true and for far too many they will happily allow government to take all their money through taxation and then dole it back to them, hopefully, with more valuable services. It's a self-fulfilling ideology. And pretty soon, Canada will be so bankrupted by liberal rule that all will live to serve the debt of those who lived before them.

Minority government, with two or more fiscally irresponsible leftist parties in control, is the most damaging for Canada at any time but particularly after 4 years of liberal waste and heading into what may be a world wide recession in the not too distant future.

You are being to general. Conservatives have different subgroups, western rural conservatives do run on social issues, the Federal Conservatives try to keep them quiet so they don't cost votes in Ontario and Quebec. It is the western rural conservatives who pushed for the Reform Party, (federally) and the Wild Rose party in Alberta because the PC party was not pushing social issues enough
 
I would say it is not a democracy when significantly less then 50% of the voting population gets to have 100% of the control of the government. Regardless of it being Liberal or Conservative. First past the post is a horrible system, if not using Proportional representation then the French system of run off's until the candidate receives 50%+1 should be in order

To say that FPTP is not fatally flawed and perfectly fine is to be wilfully ignorant of the anti-democratic outcomes it routinely creates.
 
Canadians, by and large, are like me - socially liberal and fiscally conservative. No party on the left even remotely resembles fiscal conservatism. Every party on the left, at least here in Canada, believes that average citizens are unable to live their own lives and must have government, particularly liberal government control all aspects of life from birth to death. Unfortunately, for far too many, government interference and beggaring of the populace has almost made this come true and for far too many they will happily allow government to take all their money through taxation and then dole it back to them, hopefully, with more valuable services. It's a self-fulfilling ideology. And pretty soon, Canada will be so bankrupted by liberal rule that all will live to serve the debt of those who lived before them.

Complete nonsense. If that were true, centrist and left parties wouldn't be earning more than 50% of the popular vote in virtual perpetuity, nevermind the absurd hyperbole throughout the rest of this ridiculous post.
 
Complete nonsense. If that were true, centrist and left parties wouldn't be earning more than 50% of the popular vote in virtual perpetuity, nevermind the absurd hyperbole throughout the rest of this ridiculous post.

It also ignores reality in that the Liberals under Cretian and Martin were the first government to balance the federal budget and pay down debt since the 60s if I recall correctly on the date. Harper ran deficits I believe every year he held a majority
 
It also ignores reality in that the Liberals under Cretian and Martin were the first government to balance the federal budget and pay down debt since the 60s if I recall correctly on the date. Harper ran deficits I believe every year he held a majority

I won't comment on your other posts, other than to say I obviously disagree.

As for Cretien and Martin, this occurred in the early to mid 90's when Cretien was Prime Minister and Paul Martin was his Finance Minister. Paul Martin was what I was referring to above - a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and more accurately a modern day Conservative - and he was, at that time, more popular in the Liberal Party than Cretien was, Cretien having largely botched the Quebec independence movement and almost losing the country in the process. Martin was the power behind the move to cut federal spending and federal transfer payments to the provinces, not Cretien. Shortly after, Cretien "retired" and Martin took over leadership of the Liberal Party. He paid a price, once Prime Minister, for his strong management of the country's finances and push towards balance - he paid by losing the next election to the Conservatives because most Liberals, unlike Martin, are spendthrifts and care not a bit about the deficit and debt legacy they are leaving to Canada's children.

As for Harper and deficits, your comment is totally unfair in that Harper only gained a majority late in 2006, just prior to the 2007 world financial meltdown started in the US and Harper and the Conservatives are well reported as having had the strongest performance during that time and the quickest recovery out of deficit of any of the leading world economies. In fact, the last year of his majority, prior to spending drunk Justin Trudeau being elected, the budget was balanced.
 
Back
Top Bottom