Do party changes really change anything at the riding level?

[Machjo]

Everybody talks about if these parties merged or if those parties merged, or if a new party were created, etc. that that would somehow change things in Parliament beyond just party names and logos.

I'd argue that in reality nothing of substance changes. To take an example, let's say riding X stands at point Y along the political spectrum. You can shift parties all you want, but no matter what you do, that riding will still end up with a candidate sitting at position Y along the political spectrum.

If for instance, Party Z represents position Y, but it merges with another party A to form party B, then it would still be wise for the new party B to run a candidate holding position Y anyway. Because if it decides to run a candidate holding position B, then a vacuum is created and it's only a matter of time before either party C shifts to position Y, thus bringing things back to the way they were before albeit with new party names, or a new party Y comes into being.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how the party game is played, that still won't determine who'll win at the local riding level, and parties will still need to match the interests of that riding.

Personally, for this reason I'd say party politics achieves nothing of substance in determining the composition of parliament. It's all superficial in the end.

I voted for the third option. I think in the short term it could change things since even though the party may shift ideologically, some blind party supporters would take longer to notice this shift. But over time they too would likely eventually move away from the party as they realize how much it's shifted over time. So there could be a temporary lag, but that lag would be temporary at best, lasting no more than a generation at most.

 

[Chiliagon]

you come to Alberta and try switching from a PC to a Liberal...

let's see how many of your votes you had are lost!!

Alberta is PC god and if you were to ever switch to Liberal, they'd fry you at the steak! cut you down and how!

 

[Machjo]

you come to Alberta and try switching from a PC to a Liberal...

let's see how many of your votes you had are lost!!

Alberta is PC god and if you were to ever switch to Liberal, they'd fry you at the steak! cut you down and how!

You misunderstood. I wasn't talking about a candiate just switching parties, but rather reforming parties themselves. To take an example, let's say the PC's joined the Wildrose Alliance. That new party would still need to run more of a red tory in a more red Tory riding, and a true blue Tory of the Wildrose variety in a more right Tory riding.

Or if let's say the Libs and NDP merged, still that new party would still need to run a traditional liberal in a traditional liberal riding and a socialist in a more socialist riding. Sue it helps prevent vote splitting, and so has some impact on that front, but at the end of the day, parties merging or disappearing and being replaced by new parties change little on the ground.

Another example. If the PCs disappeared in Alberta, certainly Tory voters would not vote Liberal unless the Liberal party shifted right considerably to end up looking like the old PC party. Most likely, the Wildrose Alliance would take its place. Yet since the PCs would not exist anymore, old PC supporters would all turn to the Wildrose Alliance and so before you know it, the Wildrose Alliance would essentially just take the place of the old PC party. Look at what happened to the CPC at the federal level. many of the old Red Tories joined it so now it looks similar to the old Conservative Party, having shifted left a little from the Reform Party. And since some old PCs, mainly the red variety, joined the federal liberals and Greens, now the Greens and Liberals are more conservative than they would otherwise have been, with some left liberals and Greens dropping out and joining the NDP thus dragging the NDP right a little.

Now some right Tories are unhappy with this and so the CPC will likely collapse once again.

At the end of the day, just shifting parties changes little on the ground.

 

[petros]

Gees. She's right, I really do need bifocals. I thought it said panty changes in the title......


I'd say the riding level depends on the cut of the hips.

 

[AnnaG]

In Canadian politics, everything is dynamically static.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I have no idea. I Alberta we are stuck with the political equivalent of the Jurassic Era.

 

[Liberalman]

you come to Alberta and try switching from a PC to a Liberal...

let's see how many of your votes you had are lost!!

Alberta is PC god and if you were to ever switch to Liberal, they'd fry you at the steak! cut you down and how!

your forgetting Western Alliance

 

[L Gilbert]

In Canadian politics, everything is dynamically static.

Like a ball bearing in a bowl. However you nudge the bearing, it always returns to the bottom of the bowl.

 

[Trotz]

FPTP guarantees big tent politics and career-building politicians.

'Dynamically Stable' was entirely the purpose of FPTP, the British Nobles wanted a "stable system" where the elected officials were controllable. Replace 'Nobles' with Oligarchs and you get the American and Canadian system in a nutshell.

We need electoral reform, either STV or Mixed PR