It isn’t as bad up here as in America because we haven’t yet devolved into a two party system but it feels inevitable with our election system. When you attack a political opponent you damage them and yourself - it never looks good to be focused on picking apart an opponent instead of boosting yourself… in a multi-party system this means that you’re helping someone else more whenever you’re running attack ads. Trudeau fear mongering about the CPC helps boost the NDP more than the LPC.
When you have a two party system that effect is removed. Both Trump and Biden are primarily running on how awful the other dude is without being held to account on their own policy stances… one of them is clearly worse but it’s a deeply unhealthy political system.
(Just as an FYI, I’m a Canadian immigrant from the US - I’m now a citizen and I’ve experienced both systems).
One major difference between Canada and the US is the Westminster parliamentary system and the fact that we don’t have a quasi religious commitment to a piece of paper and founding daddy issues. The two party system will probably never become as ironclad as in the US because we don’t have the Imperial Presidency where every election is an event of cosmic proportions. Instead our system has a lot more space for power sharing (minority governments, coalitions, supply and support, etc). Plus Québec, which is literally Canada’s saving grace, no matter what Canadians think. (New Canadian who loves QC here.)
Don’t need a crystal ball, they aren’t exactly an unknown quantity. CPC has party policy, a political philosophy and a governing history, I won’t pretend I don’t know how they’ll act.
Last time I checked almost the entirety of that was better than the current Liberals. Lower housing prices, lower cost of living, lower immigration, lower homelessness, lower drug deaths, less crime, higher per capita GDP
See this is the thing with arguing on the internet, a list of stuff and absolutely no thoughtful analysis. Like a bumper sticker that found its way onto the internet.
Just one example, crime rates have fallen steadily since the 90s under all governments and continue to be near historic lows. In fact, most of Harper’s tenure saw crime above or near the current levels. But you wouldn’t know that if you got your information from some guy on the internet who just says “less crime”.
Basically everything you listed is arguable at best, false at worst. But I know that won’t stop ya.
It’s almost like a system that awards power on a winner-takes-all basis results in suboptimal representation of your population. Who would’ve though? /s
Couldn’t agree more. Politics (and politicians by extension) should represent the constituents, not force the constituents to fit into one of two camps. The whole system is backwards currently and the sooner we fix it, the better we’ll all be for it.
Yes! Electoral reform referendums are always being pushed down people’s throats even though most people already support pr as it was shown when they voted for the BCNDP and BCGreens to get it done. Which is why the bigger parties often want to slow down the process and have the corporate media campaign against it as it goes against big money interests.
It’s certainly a bit leading in question 1 and doesn’t explain the differences in question 2. I don’t think it was outright intended to influence people’s decisions, but it sure didn’t help either.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Remember when trudeau said “this will be the last FPTP election” (i’m paraphrasing)???
I actually believed him and held my nose and voted for him
I know! The biggest hostility in my mind is from everyone that voted for him hoping he would actually do something meaningful on electoral reform.
It isn’t as bad up here as in America because we haven’t yet devolved into a two party system but it feels inevitable with our election system. When you attack a political opponent you damage them and yourself - it never looks good to be focused on picking apart an opponent instead of boosting yourself… in a multi-party system this means that you’re helping someone else more whenever you’re running attack ads. Trudeau fear mongering about the CPC helps boost the NDP more than the LPC.
When you have a two party system that effect is removed. Both Trump and Biden are primarily running on how awful the other dude is without being held to account on their own policy stances… one of them is clearly worse but it’s a deeply unhealthy political system.
(Just as an FYI, I’m a Canadian immigrant from the US - I’m now a citizen and I’ve experienced both systems).
How many parties do you have?
Usually about three a week.
One major difference between Canada and the US is the Westminster parliamentary system and the fact that we don’t have a quasi religious commitment to a piece of paper and founding daddy issues. The two party system will probably never become as ironclad as in the US because we don’t have the Imperial Presidency where every election is an event of cosmic proportions. Instead our system has a lot more space for power sharing (minority governments, coalitions, supply and support, etc). Plus Québec, which is literally Canada’s saving grace, no matter what Canadians think. (New Canadian who loves QC here.)
imma jelly of that if you live in toronto
Trudeau isn’t fear mongering about the CPC, they’ll be every bit as bad and worse than the Liberals say.
Could you also use that crystal ball to tell me next week’s lottery numbers?
Don’t need a crystal ball, they aren’t exactly an unknown quantity. CPC has party policy, a political philosophy and a governing history, I won’t pretend I don’t know how they’ll act.
Last time I checked almost the entirety of that was better than the current Liberals. Lower housing prices, lower cost of living, lower immigration, lower homelessness, lower drug deaths, less crime, higher per capita GDP
See this is the thing with arguing on the internet, a list of stuff and absolutely no thoughtful analysis. Like a bumper sticker that found its way onto the internet. Just one example, crime rates have fallen steadily since the 90s under all governments and continue to be near historic lows. In fact, most of Harper’s tenure saw crime above or near the current levels. But you wouldn’t know that if you got your information from some guy on the internet who just says “less crime”.
Basically everything you listed is arguable at best, false at worst. But I know that won’t stop ya.
As if the united states did not already show the problems of first-past-the-post on a massive scale…
That’s why its important for them to support fairvote us to get ranked voting in. So they have a third viable candidate.
It’s almost like a system that awards power on a winner-takes-all basis results in suboptimal representation of your population. Who would’ve though? /s
We need more than 2 choices at every one of the 338 riddings and more accountability for all politicians. I’m tired of toxic politics.
Couldn’t agree more. Politics (and politicians by extension) should represent the constituents, not force the constituents to fit into one of two camps. The whole system is backwards currently and the sooner we fix it, the better we’ll all be for it.
What boggles my mind though is that three consecutive pollings on electoral reform have failed here in BC (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electoral-reform-referendum-results-1.4954538). You’d think people would like to get rid of FPTP but apparently they consistently vote in favor of the status quo.
Yes! Electoral reform referendums are always being pushed down people’s throats even though most people already support pr as it was shown when they voted for the BCNDP and BCGreens to get it done. Which is why the bigger parties often want to slow down the process and have the corporate media campaign against it as it goes against big money interests.
The ballot seemed like it was setup for failure although the turnout(42.2%) was also mediocre as usual.
It’s certainly a bit leading in question 1 and doesn’t explain the differences in question 2. I don’t think it was outright intended to influence people’s decisions, but it sure didn’t help either.