Canada goes conservative

[Lyion]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

Canadians choose conservative
Defeated PM Paul Martin to step down as Liberal leader

(CNN) -- Canadians elected Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper as their next prime minister Monday, but denied him the outright majority he would need to take any strong change in direction.

"Tonight friends, our great country has voted for change and Canadians have asked our party to take the lead in that change," Harper told a cheering crowd of party faithful in Calgary late Monday.

"There will be another chance, and there will be another time," Martin said. "The people of Canada have chosen (Harper) to lead a minority government, and I wish him the best."

Buoyed by a political resurrection in French-speaking Quebec, the Conservatives won the most seats in the 308-seat House of Commons, despite a campaign in which Liberals tried to stop Harper by linking him to American conservatives in general -- and President Bush in particular.

However, as the votes were being counted the Conservatives were hovering at around 125 seats, well short of the 155 they needed for a majority, while the scandal-plagued Liberals were winning around 100 seats, down from the 133 they held going into the vote.

The Conservatives were taking about 36 percent of the vote nationwide, compared to 30 percent for the Liberals, 17 percent for the left-wing New Democrats and 10 percent for the Quebec-separatist Bloc Quebecois, which only runs candidates in the province.

Under Canada's electoral system, the Conservatives, as the largest party, would form a minority government, as Martin did after a similar split in the last election in 2004. That will force Harper to find support from around 30 opposition lawmakers in order to advance measures through Parliament.
Double-digit gains for Conservatives

In Monday's vote, the New Democrats appeared to be siphoning support from the Liberals on the left, increasing their seat count from 18 to around 30. The Bloc Quebecois lost a handful of seats but was still holding around 50.

Going into the election, the Conservatives did not hold a single seat in Quebec, having garnered less than 9 percent of the vote there in 2004. But Monday, they were on track to take 10 of the province's 75 seats, winning more than 25 percent of the vote -- a showing that denied the separatist Bloc an outright majority and pushed the Liberals into third place.

The Conservatives also made a double-digit gain in seats in Ontario, the most populous province and a Liberal stronghold.

Harper, 46, an economist from Calgary, was poised to become 22nd prime minister of Canada, marking a comeback for the political right after a dozen years in the political wilderness.

"We know we've run a good campaign," Harper said before the vote. "We've run the campaign we wanted to run and got our message out."

The Liberals, finding themselves behind in the polls, attacked Harper late in the campaign with television ads in which they tried to portray him as a far-right conservative in the U.S. mode and link him to Bush, asking voters to "choose your Canada."

A similar tactic worked against Harper in 2004, when a Conservative lead evaporated in the campaign's closing days. But this time around, Harper sought to allay concerns among moderate voters, pledging not to change the country's abortion laws and vowing to take a tougher line against the United States in an ongoing trade dispute over softwood lumber.

Harper also said he would not bring Canada into the U.S. coalition in Iraq, expressing "great disappointment" that weapons of mass destruction had not been found. At the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Harper and other conservatives were critical of the decision by Martin's predecessor, Jean Chretien, not to participate.

However, Harper has said he would have Parliament revisit a controversial decision by Martin's government to legalize same-sex marriage across the country, a measure he opposed.

Liberals hit by scandal

Monday's election was called after Martin's government fell in November, when the Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois teamed up to push through a vote of no confidence.

Liberal support slid dramatically because of what came to be called the "sponsorship scandal," in which government money was paid to advertising firms to shore up support for the country's federal unity in French-speaking Quebec.

An audit of the spending concluded last year that most of the money was wasted, with little or no work done, and went to firms with Liberal connections. Martin -- who inherited the scandal-plagued program from Chretien -- apologized to the Canadian people.

Martin, who was not implicated in the scandal, became prime minister in December 2003, after Chretien retired. In June 2004 election, his Liberals were returned to government, but the party lost its majority amid the fallout from the sponsorship scandal.

Among the most closely watched races Monday was in suburban Toronto, where Conservatives were trying to get revenge on Liberal Cabinet minister Belinda Stronach, who last year saved Martin's government by defecting from the Conservatives just before a no-confidence vote.

At the time, Stronach, from one of Canada's wealthiest families, was dating the Conservative Party's deputy leader, Peter MacKay, creating a melodrama that riveted Canada.

Monday, despite the best efforts of Conservatives, she managed to keep her seat. However, Martin's defeat means she will no longer be in the Cabinet, while MacKay, who also won re-election Monday in Nova Scotia, likely will be.

[Zanchief]

This needed to happen if we were ever going to get another Liberal majority.

[Tikker]

it's brutal that the "ruling" party had ~35% of the popular vote


Can tell there's vast differences in politics regionally across canada

[Lyion]

Actually, I think that's brilliant. I hope for someday that the U.S. 'ruling' party will have about 20%, and there will be four or five other prominent powerful parties.

I'm uneasy with any one party controlling everything, or even just a majority of congress.

[Tikker]

well, I know what you're saying, but I'd feel a lot better about things if say 70% of the popular vote went to the ruling party

at least that way the ruling party actually represents the vast majority of the country

this way, you can in theory, push thru legislation that less than 45% of the population supports, and that is kinda weaksauce imo

[alezrik]

curious, do the majority of canadians vote? Or is it like the US?

[Sithos]

No hard numbers available as of yet for yesterdays election. Here's the last election we had


Voter turnout in the 2004 election was lower than in any national election since
Confederation in 1867, according to preliminary reports.

At 60.5 per cent, turnout was down from 2000, when it hit the previous low of 61.2 per cent.


Only in the 1898 referendum on liquor prohibition – when just 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot – did a smaller proportion of Canadian voters participate in any nationwide poll.

Monday's turnout of 60.5 per cent would suggest that only about 13.5 million of the roughly 22.3 million eligible Canadians bothered to exercise their democratic right to choose who they want to govern.

[alezrik]

so its just a bit higher than US
http://www.census.gov/population/socdem ... ab02-1.xls

in this country (suprise suprise) lots of old people vote, the young people who still think they can 'change the world' vote, most everyone else gave up a long time ago.

Edit:
err I take that back, I guess even the young people dont think they can change the world anymore.

[Spliffs]

Dude, that sucks. I was going to move to Canada too.

[Lyion]

well, I know what you're saying, but I'd feel a lot better about things if say 70% of the popular vote went to the ruling party

at least that way the ruling party actually represents the vast majority of the country

this way, you can in theory, push thru legislation that less than 45% of the population supports, and that is kinda weaksauce imo

What's weaksauce is having a single party controlling the legislative and executive, and getting little compromise and less reasonableness.


I want compromise and various views represented, and hate majority rule. As Mar repeats, democracy is truly 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. The more diversity that is truly represented, the better off everyone ends up.

[alezrik]

it would help a lot of $$$ wasnt the factor as to who can or can't have a hope in hell of running.

Should completely disolve campaign contributions, not allow election based advertiseing through the media, and have maybe 2-3 "vote offs" to get a top 3-4 to be done over a year. Make them have weekly debates for 3-4 months before the election.

I would love someone who actually lives in the "real world" (ie - not oil tycoons) but people who have had to work 60 hour weeks and have some clue what the majority of the people have to face every day, rather than these people who's biggest striffe in life has most likely been what car to drive to the golf course today.

[Tikker]

well, I know what you're saying, but I'd feel a lot better about things if say 70% of the popular vote went to the ruling party

at least that way the ruling party actually represents the vast majority of the country

this way, you can in theory, push thru legislation that less than 45% of the population supports, and that is kinda weaksauce imo

What's weaksauce is having a single party controlling the legislative and executive, and getting little compromise and less reasonableness.


I want compromise and various views represented, and hate majority rule. As Mar repeats, democracy is truly 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. The more diversity that is truly represented, the better off everyone ends up.

You missed my point


If 70% want things a certain way, then 70% end up happy, 30% less than satisfied

If 45% can get things a certain way, than 55%, or the majority of the country, are less than satisfied



18 months from now, I think we'll be voting again, and we'll probably end up with a Liberal majority, with Ralph Goodale as the new prime minister(if he wants the job)

he's the past liberal finance minister(under Martin), and actually pretty well regarded by all parties

[kiral]

Defeated PM Paul Martin to step down as Liberal leader

Did he even step down? he's not required to

[Zanchief]

He did though.

[Drem]

well, I know what you're saying, but I'd feel a lot better about things if say 70% of the popular vote went to the ruling party

at least that way the ruling party actually represents the vast majority of the country

this way, you can in theory, push thru legislation that less than 45% of the population supports, and that is kinda weaksauce imo

What's weaksauce is having a single party controlling the legislative and executive, and getting little compromise and less reasonableness.


I want compromise and various views represented, and hate majority rule. As Mar repeats, democracy is truly 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. The more diversity that is truly represented, the better off everyone ends up.

You missed my point


If 70% want things a certain way, then 70% end up happy, 30% less than satisfied

If 45% can get things a certain way, than 55%, or the majority of the country, are less than satisfied



18 months from now, I think we'll be voting again, and we'll probably end up with a Liberal majority, with Ralph Goodale as the new prime minister(if he wants the job)

he's the past liberal finance minister(under Martin), and actually pretty well regarded by all parties

i thought canada had like five or more actively working political parties. if one of them got 25%, then that is the majority as the rest would all have to be lower than 25% to add up to 100%. isn't that lyion's point? it makes perfect sense to me

[Eziekial]

A "democracy" is a horrible form of government. It's basically mob rule and leads staight go to hell.

[kaharthemad]

A "democracy" is a horrible form of government. It's basically mob rule and leads staight go to hell.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding on whats for dinner -Neal Boortz.

[Lyion]

The saying

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's
for dinner.

Far outdates Boortz, although it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to take credit for it.

[kaharthemad]

that was the first I had heard of it. I thought it was his.

[Tikker]

i thought canada had like five or more actively working political parties. if one of them got 25%, then that is the majority as the rest would all have to be lower than 25% to add up to 100%. isn't that lyion's point? it makes perfect sense to me

You're missing the point completely

What I'm saying is that with the way electoral ridings are set up, if you capture 40-45% of the vote, you can actually end up controlling 51%+ of the seats in parliament


I understand that Lyion is saying that with say, 4 parties earning 25% of the vote each, you have to have cooperation, and consensus to pass bills, and you end up with better government

What I'm saying is that's not what actually happens

[Martrae]

As Mar repeats, democracy is truly 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner.

See! I said it!