First Past the Post: a Mandate to Rule?

[Mowich]

Okay, as is my habit, I've gone crazy...............

Election results that resulted in MAJORITY governments in Canada;

1945: Liberals win 177 out of 245 seats with 39.78% of the vote.

1949: Liberals win 191 out of 262 seats with 49.15% of the vote.

1953: Liberals win 169 out of 265 seats with 48.43% of the vote.

1958: Progressive Conservatives win 208 out of 265 seats with 53.66% of the vote.

1968: Liberals win 154 out of 264 seats with 45.37% of the vote.

1974: Liberals win 141 out of 264 seats with 43.15% of the vote.

1980: Liberals win 147 out of 282 seats with 44.34% of the vote.

1984: Progressive Conservatives win 211 out of 282 seats with 50.03% of the vote.

1988: Progressive Conservatives win 169 out of 282 seats with 43.0% of the vote.

1993: Liberals win 177 out of 295 seats with 41.24% of the vote.

1997: Liberals win 155 out of 301 seats with 38.5% of the vote.

2000: Liberals win 172 out of 301 seats with 40.85% of the vote.

2011: Conservatives win 166 out of 308 seats with 39.62% of the vote.

Please note that the 50% of the vote mark has been met exactly TWICE in the last 70 years......out of 13 majority governments.

Interestingly, both times were in favour of Progressive Conservative governments.

Now.......let's put the Harper mandate thing to rest..........if Willy King had the right to fight the greatest war in history with less than 50%, if Trudeau had the right to radically change the direction of the nation with less than 50%, if Chretien had the right to destroy our military and institute expensive, unconstitutional and useless gun control with less than 50%....

Then Harper has the mandate to rebuild the military and restructure the gun control regimen with his majority.......

That is simply just and correct under the first past the post system.....and I would welcome reform of that system........but until it is reformed with the consent of the people it is completely valid.

Right on, Colpy. Though I doubt the 'facts' will quiet the rabble. :lol:

 

[weaselwords]

I don't have a problem with FPTP. What I do have a problem with is fixed election dates. The way its works right now with the Cons, is get the controversial legislation out of the way as fast as possible. Witness the Bills being rammed thru this fall/winter session. Then going into a lull for the next two and half years (budgets excepted). After that they'll turn the light bulb back on the last year to get the rabble ready for an election. I prefer that window in which the government can pull the trigger somewhere between the fourth and fifth year. It keeps people on their toes.

 

[Machjo]

Probably the size of the population. Nunavut's entire population is the size of a very small city or large town. Most municipalities don't have a party system either. Parties allow various people with similar political beliefs to band together, help each other and raise money. FPTP would do really well with a two party system but I doubt the country would.

By changing the constitution to allow us to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament would help somewhat. The problem I see with political palrties though is that they charicaturize ideas. For instance, I agree with the conservative Party on some points, the Libertarian Party on others, the Green Party on yet others, and the NDP on others still. Porties stifle ideas by forcing us all through a pidgeon-hole.

I don't have a problem with FPTP. What I do have a problem with is fixed election dates. The way its works right now with the Cons, is get the controversial legislation out of the way as fast as possible. Witness the Bills being rammed thru this fall/winter session. Then going into a lull for the next two and half years (budgets excepted). After that they'll turn the light bulb back on the last year to get the rabble ready for an election. I prefer that window in which the government can pull the trigger somewhere between the fourth and fifth year. It keeps people on their toes.

I actually like the idea of fixed elections, as long as the government actually respects it. The reason for this is stability. but of course Harper broke his own law, but he's not much of a politician though a great tactician able to drive wedges between Canadians. That's all he's good for for the most part.

 

[DaSleeper]

By changing the constitution to allow us to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament would help somewhat. The problem I see with political palrties though is that they charicaturize ideas. For instance, I agree with the conservative Party on some points, the Libertarian Party on others, the Green Party on yet others, and the NDP on others still. Porties stifle ideas by forcing us all through a pidgeon-hole.



I actually like the idea of fixed elections, as long as the government actually respects it. The reason for this is stability. but of course Harper broke his own law, but he's not much of a politician though a great tactician able to drive wedges between Canadians. That's all he's good for for the most part.

You meant "Liberals", didn't you?

 

[Machjo]

You meant "Liberals", didn't you?

I meant Libertarian, but I sometimes agree with Liberals too.

 

[DaSleeper]

I meant Libertarian, but I sometimes agree with Liberals too.

Sorry, for my confusion, since the Liberals are quite the opposite of Libertarians:lol:

 

[WLDB]

I meant Libertarian, but I sometimes agree with Liberals too.

A friend of mine is in the Libertarian party. I read their platform. Sounds like total anarchy, but there is 1 or 2 things in there I like.

 

[TenPenny]

The problem with fixed elections is that when things go to heck, you can't have a new election, you have to wait on the calendar.