@@jimmywest8684 ehh. Canadian politics may be boring, but its not because things are good in the hood. Its because Canadian politicians since Mulroney really are afraid to take action on anything, so we sit in a mediocre status quo while our geopolitical issues like the looming housing crisis, personal debt crisis, and the fact we are increasingly pushed to the backbenches in world politics continues to grow. Canada used to be a dynamic country that was very active in the world. Now we sit here in apathy.
I was so excited to finally get JJ’s opinion on the election. Unlike the election itself, it didn’t disappoint. Re: the Green win in Ontario, I read the the Liberals backed the Green candidate over the NDP candidate. That definitely seemed like a strategic way to not get a NDP win that riding, as they could easier retake the seat from a Green than an NDP candidate next time.
Yeah, as an American, I was wondering what happened there since I assumed NDP would be the next logical choice, especially in the middle of Toronto, but that makes sense. Personally it seems like a failure to win that seat is a bigger indictment of Jagmeet Singh’s strategy.
It’s interesting how you wish there were less Canadian parties. As an American I wish we had like at least a third party that mattered at all. There’s a popular sentiment here that if you vote for a third party you’re basically not voting at all
Well in our history we have only elected liberals or conservatives, but I wish we had term limits for the prime minister like you have for your president
@@GERMAN_ENGINEERING Dang I did not think of that. Lobbyists are ehh. One guy here on RU-vid who talks about "right to repair" lobbies a lot but he's not bad dude. I also think you can't just have people vote because a lot of people like in this case do not know the details of subject matter. But on the other side of things Lobbyists have there own interests and are corrupt as well. Very difficult world we live in.
Here in America half the public flips out when someone wins the presidency with only 46% of the vote (versus someone who gets 48%). Meanwhile over in Canada you can become PM with less than a third of the vote and it's seen as just business as usual lol. Love how wildly different things are just walking over the border haha.
The US president can do things traditionally only Kings and Emperors could do. Meanwhile, many PMs and chancellors get the boot the second 50%+1 in parliament want them out. It's not comparable.
@@Alias_Anybody The power of the US President is greatly overstated, congress is more powerful by far. Most of what the president can do can be stopped thanks to Checks And Balances. And frankly even much of the power recent presidents HAVE had, they weren't supposed to, and it is instead blatantly unconstitutional authoritarian bullshit like the flagrant abuse of the Executive Order far beyond the scope of what was originally intended, as well as a massive overexpansion of the executive branch and widescale corruption in the carrying out of said duties. And virtually all of this abuse of power and all this corruption is by one side of the aisle due to how completely partisan government staffing has become (over 95% of government employees in the capitol are now Democrats); these presidential powers would be greatly reduced if we brought government back to a more balanced state. But even given the current state of things, presidents are no where near as powerful as people think (or at least they aren't supposed to be).
US President has a lot more power. For example executive orders mean elections matter more. Other countries also use representative democracy which means that third parties hold seats so its very unlikely that a majority happens at all. Also coalitions are often formed between plurality and smaller parties which gives smaller parties a voice and limits the power of a low popularity government. In the UK which is another country to use first past the pole voting the leader has popular majority support most of the time and third parties exist allowing coalitions. So your comment makes little sense except to show how messed up American voting is
It's interesting how extraordinarily similar this is when compared with the politics we have here in the UK. Obviously there is a good reason that the two systems are so similar, but the trends you've highlighted in this video are so familiar. Trudeau's decision to hold a snap election after two years and ultimately fail to make gains is reminiscent of Theresa May's failure to do the same in 2017. Admittedly, it does work sometimes, as Boris demonstrated for us in 2019. The comparatively high vote share of the NDP, which results in a comparatively low seat count due to the distribution across the country, is the exact problem that the Lib Dems find themselves in every election. The comparatively low, but highly concentrated, number of votes for Bloc Québécois is very similar to what happens with the SNP. Additionally, the SNP also manage to be the third largest party in Parlament despite only running in Scotland. The greens having a single stronghold in Vancouver is very similar to their single stronghold in Brighton. Here, like in Canada, securing any other seats is seen as a win even though they get a reasonably high number of votes. You shouldn't dismiss the effect of the People's Party either. Although they've kind of collapsed now, UKIP used to occupy the same space in the UK. They also would fail to win any seats, but the number of votes they took from the Tories was enough to put pressure on them to shift to the right in several areas. The conventional wisdom is that it was this pressure which led to the Conservatives promising to deliver the Brexit referendum. Ultimately, UKIP achieved their main goal without even getting an MP elected. The other point of note is what you said at the end about fixed terms. We actually tried that, but with the caveat that a 2/3 majority could still vote for an early election. That ultimately changed nothing, as opposition parties tend to worry about looking weak if they try and avoid an election. It just led to a few weeks of gridlock instead, and the government are now in the process of repealing the fixed term parliament act.
PM Trudeau's predecessor, Conservative Stephen Harper's government passed such a change, then called a snap election a couple of years later, making his law moot. Interestingly, he went from a majority to 2 consecutive minority governments.
The reason the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is completely useless is that, although a two thirds majority is needed to call an election under the provisions of the act, the government can just use a 50% majority to pass an entirely different act that overrides the FTPA and allows them to call one anyway. Which is exactly what they did in 2019 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Parliamentary_General_Election_Act_2019
i agree with much of your observations but I'd disagree with directly comparing UK 2017 to Canada 2021 as May lost her majority ( a far greater consequence) and there was effectively a second referendum on her Brexit deal expressed in that election.
Y’know, people talk a lot of shit about the American government system-often rightfully so-but it blows my mind how many countries give their leaders the power to call an election. I can’t imagine the chaos that would happen in the US if the president or house speaker had that kind of power.
As an American we're very accustomed to reflexively believing that our election system is one of the worst in the democratic world. I know that I am certainly frustrated by how "undemocratic" it can feel when parties that get a minority of the votes end up in control or how everyone feels forced to vote for one of two parties. But then I look at Canada and see that the grass isn't necessarily all that much greener. Which is simply to say that every system has pluses and minuses, many of which you might not recognize until you see certain unintended consequences occur. I still believe in electoral reform, but thanks to JJ's videos and the further research he's inspired I no longer believe in any sort of electoral miracle cure that will instantly solve all that ails us.
Yup. It's amazing that I love his channel so much yet disagree with his politics. He does a good job at keeping things balanced and pointing out his biases when they come up.
I can say I would listen to a lot more right wing commentators if they were anything like JJ. He's even changed my views on a few things because he doesn't present his arguments in the same toxic disrespectful way most conservative pundits do. Imagine that: persuading people by using respect and empathy in a calm and civil discussion. I've only heard of such a thing in legend...
@@chaosPneumatic same here. Personally, I don’t even like politics. Im still very new to it, but to me it has always just looked like everyone angrily trying to convince the other why their political stance is the best. JJ is the only reason why I even bother trying to stay in the know.
That is definitely my biggest takeaway. There are many differences between Canada and the US where I'm not sure which is better, but I firmly believe we'd benefit from shorter election cycles.
You’re not wrong. But mostly it’s because there are very few battleground ridings in Canada. It must be awesome to be a backbench MP in a safe riding. Your opposition running around like crazy doing meet and greets and town halls and putting up signs and spending a war chest all to get less than 5% of the votes because they don’t have the correct meaningless label.
@@SuperKing604 Would have been better with a change in government in site of 6 years of failure and scandals under the current government who have do nothing but lie to Canadians. Would have been money spent, if the result was different and the opposition won.
"Spite Trudeau" would have been to vote him out as Pm for a different party to form government. This was cowardly by voters to still trust the government after 6 years of nothing by lies and scandals. Yet again for 2nd time i a row, they lost the popular vote. More evidence of our rigged undemocratic system that benefits Liberals/governing party to give them 2x the seats except equal proportion based on votes=seats.
As a German, i find it rather mind boggling how a lot of countries have an electoral system that so massively distorts the will of the voters while being tolerated by the public. I don't know if this is cultural, based on familiarity or just large parties not wanting to give up power. Shout out to my fellow mixed member proportional bros on the other side of the world in New Zealand
This is related to the English idea of representation of a district. For example, in many english speaking nations, you elect your Congress or Parliament by having elected people from congressional districts/ridings who represent their district. Essentially, it is giving each district a voice in government. IF you have that, you have to allow for the possibility of the popular vote not always lining up with representation in government. For example if there were 5 districts and Party A won 2 of them by a combined 20 votes, and Party B won 3 of them by a combined 15 votes, Party B would get more representation in Congress even with less overall votes. The only way to make sure that the party with the most votes gets the most seats is to do proportion, which means that districts can no longer send representatives
Canada is a geographically huge country with incredibly diverse economies, social issues, and even culture. The defense for congressional representation is that it prevents regional interests from over-influencing the country through highly concentrated vote. The most obvious example would be Alberta, Canada's most right-wing province with a fairly heavy rural population and very high vested interest in oil & gas promotion and corporate subsidies. However the argument can be challenged considering that the Conservative party still remains fairly popular across the entire country. The opposite of this argument is that Ontario, Canada's most populated province, seemingly gets to decide the election each time without consideration for vested regional interests, however they leave out the fact that ~40% of the country lives here. In sum, how do you balance regional concentrated interests while maintaining balance with the entire country? The system we have doesn't seem to being doing this considering how big the seat gap was between the Liberals and Conservatives yet how close their popular vote count was, but I don't think that straight representation by population makes a lot of sense, either.
I don’t understand it with Canada, their system is just fundamentally undemocratic. But i can explain why the US system is how it is. So the US is at heart a republic with each state gauranteed fair representation. The House of Representatives is a population based house while the Senate is state based. The house leans democratic while the senate leans republican. It’s all about the balance of power. The electoral college exists to force candidates to focus on more than 2 parts of the country to win, and it also leans republican. The goal was to protect the rights of the minority, meaning 51% couldn’t control the 49%. It has worked fairly well for 244 years tbh. One small hiccup in 1863 when the minority party got so mad they tried rebelling, but other than that the country has stayed pretty solid. Only 3 time has the loser old the popular vote become president too (Clinton in 1996, Bush in 2000, and Trump in 2016). If the US had a Canadian, British, or German system, the country would have torn itself apart a long time ago as they simply are not fair system, and you can tell by how solidly left those countries are.
@@professionalgiraffe I think Canada should do with the EU model. Sovereign provinces with free trade and circulation. And central body governing foreign policy, currency and citizenship only. Some provinces may be too poor to survive in such a system so some merging/annexing will be probably be necessary.
I mean Doug Ford is a massive reason why a lot of Ontarians refused to vote for O'Toole (especially in the GTA). Most people think of "Conservatives" as one party and O'Toole backing Kenney's horrendous handling of COVID-19 cost him urban ridings in Alberta as well.
@@JJMcCullough I wouldn't just say that's an irrational choice, because unless the national conservative party rebukes one of their members, he still speaks on their behalf, at least to the general populace.
I don’t think the solution is having less parties, I believe the solution is a Ranked Choice Voting system which will allow people to vote there conscious well only allowing people to win by winning the popular vote. Edit: Thank you for all the likes everyone!
@@kadennelms8419 "with a single seat per percentage allotment." why? If there are 349 seats and you get 10% of the votes, then you get 349*0.1=35 seats. I dont understand why 1 percentage point needs to represent 1 seat. Also, alot of countries has a electoral threshhold. In Sweden it is 4%, if you get less votes you get no seats. Getting 5% will not give you 5% of the seats since those 5% is not 5% of votes for parties that reached the threshold. So a party who gets 5% might get 6-7% of the seats.
@@kadennelms8419 not at all. its a way to ensure that the party voted in is the party that is actually liked by the majority. in the UK, the tories tell the brexit party to stand down or else they both wont win. in aus, they can both run together, and whoever is more popular will win. combining that for local constituencies with the german MMP system means that the final parliament will be fully representative of the population, while each constituency still retains their own representative with the ability to improve their area.
The German electoral system is quite effective in tackling problems like this one. Every district elects its own representative, but thanks to additional mandates that are given to the parties in accordance with the national popular vote, the share of seats really fits the percentage of votes they got on the national level.
I'm not Canadian (or German) but your MMP is quite well thought-out. I took a class in college (at university I mean) called "History of Europe 1914-present" and the professor told us of the problems that repeatedly plagued the Weimar Republic; and how they fixed them in your post-war constitution.
Yet again, one of the most engaging analyses of our election and it's underlying mechanisms I've ever seen. This video should be required viewing for highschool students!
"People want a system that preserves strong regional representation but also reflects the national will and these two objectives are just fundamentally at odds" - This is why "Mixed Member Proportional Representation" was recommended by the committee for electoral reform back in Trudeau's first term. It is the best system to marry those two ideals. You will still have local, regional representatives but the overall makeup of the house will reflect the national will. Of course, this will mostly come at the cost of Liberal power so Trudeau obviously reneged on his promise to bring about electoral change once this was recommended.
MMP would enshrine the broken party system. They should introduce ranked ballots (or range ballots) and remove party affiliation from the ballots. Back to the good old days when we had a thriving democracy :)
I like Mixed-member proportional representation, i am German and that is one thing i like about our political system. However.... What JJ is referring to is the role of Quebec, under MMPR there is a local candidate, but the seat count reflects the popular vote, something that the BQ would be furious about. Under the current system the special role of Quebec is preserved, changing that could lead to new independence referendums and things like that. Also as you said the Liberals would loose, so they are not going to do ti anyway....but i still fear that could be a "topic too hot to touch".
The problem with this system is the fringe extremists views getting unproportionable power. There is a common mistake these days to want to throw out the old without a thought the the consequences of no recognizing what works. this how you create authoritarian systems.
The fact that a party got 5% of the people voting for them and still did not get eny seats out of 443 (5% of wich is more than 22) shows you how flawed this system is.
@@Slenderman63323 Canada is way too large geographically for the national vote alone to determine the share of seats each party gets. Hell, even most countries in Europe use local administrative regions to seat count during elections. I think Canada’s best bet would be to either use the existing provinces and territories as proportional districts to elect the members of parliament (this would align the most to the national popular vote) or use a system similar to France’s two round elections to ensure that every candidate gets an outright majority.
@@captainpep3 salve capitano! sono italiano e vivo a Roma, per dimostrarglielo parlerò di una grottesca vicenda che interessa la politica romana: lo sai che Roma sta vivendo una crisi che riguarda i cinghiali? Per qualche motivo Roma si trova invasa da questi affascinanti animali e quando dico invasa intendo letteralmente invasa. Una volta mi trovavo in un bar ed un simpatico cinghiale decise di entrare. Fu molto divertente ma anche spaventoso. Fortunatamente non sono eccessivamente pericolosi. La sindaca di Roma Virginia Raggi sostiene che la colpa sia della regione, in quanto è compito dell'amministrazione regionale occuparsi delle foreste e della fauna intorno Roma. Nicola Zingaretti, il presidente della regione, sostiene invece che i cinghiali provengano dalle campagne Romane e siano quindi un problema della città. Secondo il mio modesto parere questa è solo l'ennesima delle patetiche vicende che hanno riguardato la sindaca Raggi. La sua amministrazione si è rivelata un totale fiasco, non perchè non sia riuscita a risolvere nessuno dei problemi di Roma che sono complessi è difficilmente risolvibili con un solo mandato, ma perché alcuni di essi sono peggiorati. Roma e sommersa dalla spazzatura ed i trasporti pubblici sono un disastro, ormai è diventato un meme in Italia ma è tristemente vero, gli autobus a Roma prendono fuoco, non è la cosa più comune del mondo, ma è diventato tristemente un simbolo di questa amministrazione. Si vota domenica prossima e difficilmente Virginia Raggi potrà essere rieletta. Quindi sì, sono italiano.
Excellent Canadian election sum-up as always, JJ ...my one disagreement is we need MORE parties (with seats, preferably) in a healthy parliament....not less parties.
@@FairyCRat ya, I find it very odd that JJ floated the idea of fewer, larger parties considering he knows well how the two party system in the US has contributed to polarization.
@@thomasgeschke9553 Conservatives know the only way to win the game is not to split the vote, that's FPTP plus FPTP has many other conservative friendly attributes such as letting fewer voices speak differently than mainstream and the mainstream is the conservative's bread and butter.
I'm pretty sure the GTA is like 8 million people. So it makes sense that they're gonna be a big representation in government. People live in cities🤷♂️
I have found in my own personal experience, one of the big reasons for lack of change in the Canadian political scene is the actual voting system. I know a lot more people would like to vote NDP or Green, but don’t because of stratigraphic voting and not enough people in the riding will vote for them.
@@johnmonteith156 The fact that Quebec vote BQ & get so many steats by virtue of the system mean the conservative barely have any chance of being a majority government. Mind you 2011 showed that if it's not BQ in Quebec it's NDP. Thing is no NDP leader has proven to unite and be as charismatic as Layton. Also I'd rather have a minority convervative than LPC they legit are the worst of them all. They don't waste our money like the LPC does.
It's also pressure. People are pretty vocal about "wasting your vote" on a non popular party. I say vote how you really feel and don't allow others to influence you!
J.J., I have thoroughly enjoyed this run of videos all themed around the election but analyzing it in different ways. I'd love to see you take on more elections around the world or even non-political Canadian events in a similar way- though for now I'm sure you're kinda sick of it.
Same. I'm closer to Singh's age than the demographic he's trying to appeal to, but those stunts make me cringe so hard, I almost wanna die on his behalf
You’re the man JJ! Thanks for covering Canadian politics. RU-vid is saturated with so much American and global stuff it’s nice to get insights on the Canadian side!
One thing I learned from the Canadian election: Canadians call their electoral districts "ridings". I had to look it up, and it seems there are different names in English-speaking countries. Americans call them "election districts" or precincts; in the UK they're called "constituencies"; in Ireland they're called "electoral areas"; and Aussies and Kiwis call them "electorates". Fascinating stuff.
Americans call them districts, but not precincts. A precinct means something different-- it's basically a smaller voting area within a district, often used to better redraw districts and to report more detailed results from an election.
VIDEO IDEA: take the results of this election and plug them into a “potential” different system and see what the results would show. Obviously some assumptions would be needed.
Reforming the system: Method 1: give the same seats by province but distribute them using D'Hondt's method (or other of the same kind) Results 2021: Conservative 118 Liberal: 115 NDP: 60 Bloc: 26 PPC: 14 Green: 5 Method 2: distribute all 338 seats using the same method at a national level (each voting counting the same). Conservative 115 Liberal: 112 NDP: 61 Bloc: 26 PPC: 17 Green: 7
I ran the numbers from the 2019 election under the New Zealand/ German mixed member system and the result was still a Liberal minority although a smaller one. I intend the run the numbers on this election that way but I'm still sure the Liberals win because Alberta and Saskatchewan have only 48 seats between them and the Liberals will still win more seats than the conservatives in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario and BC.
Even though I'm American, I really enjoy these videos about Canadian politics. The outcome of this election wasn't much different from the 2019 election, but I find the concept of snap elections fascinating.
I'm also American. I found JJ's channel through the suggestions tab, so since watching a few of his videos two years ago, I have been learning (on my own) about Canadian politics and feel informed enough to speak intelligently on the topic. I appreciate that he does his best to always give the most neutral view that he can
@@elineuenschwander4239 Yeah, JJ's great. I think I discovered him through Mr. Beat maybe just before last year's US election. He admits he has his own biases, as we all do, but he does a great job of showing all the facts and letting his audience decide what they think on their own. When I watch his videos, I feel they're always well thought out and informative, and I very rarely feel like I'm watching them through a conservative lens.
12:42 Mixed-member proportional representation could do that. Have two ballots for regional vote and party vote and voters can cast their choices for both of those. The party vote will balance out the regional vote. It has worked in Germany and New Zealand as well as in the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. It can also work in Canada.
It could be that your comment doesn‘t age well. The german system might produce a large number of MPs which are kind of unnecessary. The number of MPs supposed to be elected today is 598. The results coming in in about 18 hours might range in a total of 720 to 860 MPs!
@@SinnedNogara The basic question the whole thing boils down to is, whether you stress the proportional or the regional Element in MMP. The constitutional court has ruled that a distortion of the proportional representation of the party votes is acceptable only to a very limited range. That‘s why additional seats in parliament have been included to a very large extent four years ago. This time every forecast shows even more of that happening. The issue is somehow related to J.J.‘s point on the discretionary powers of prime ministers in Canada (or most other british style governments): Merkel‘s party has blocked any more reasonable version of MMP for purely partisan reasons. But in the end, it doesn‘t change the overall result except for some microresults (MPs holding their too small constituencies) and it adds much unnecessary costs. So Germany‘s MMP is hardly a role model.
@@uweschollmeyer9409 One thing you could do to change the system is to acknowledge the people that didn't vote. So if turnout is i.e. 80%, 20% of seats out of 299 remain empty, and the direct candidates from the-first-past-the-post votes will thereby be reduced as well.
Trust me, you dont want less parties. This just leads to "big tent" parties that arrogantly feel entitled to the votes of people who stongly disagree with the majority of their decisions.
I’ll admit, we still have that (ie conservatives basically being the only right party) but at least our parties have to put a little effort into being competitive
In 2015 I voted for Trudeau, it was my first federal election and I was told harper was bad so I voted Liberal In 2019 I was unhappy with the shame Trudeau had acquired for his numerous scandals, and I believed it was time for a change to conservative. In 2021 I was disappointed in Trudeau for calling the election at all, and I didn't buy Otooles leftist rhetoric, and also didn't appreciate the parties making vaccination political, so I voted NDP.
@@korytoombs886 I wonder why Green Party leader Annamie Paul didn't run on Vancouver Island. She would have had a better chance to win there rather than in her native Toronto.
While, I agree proportional representation of the national electorate is important, I don’t think having fewer parties with a wider range of opinions within the party is a good solution to that. The two-party system we have in the US has both parties with a relatively diverse spectrum of opinions within each party (despite what Democrats may say about Republicans and visa versa). Yet, if anything, this diversity has voters of all stripes becoming both increasingly polarized while also increasingly less trustful or enthusiastic about either party. FiveThirtyEight had an article that explains this issue quite well called Why the Two Party System is Wrecking American Democracy.
Republicans do not now. The majority of republicans have gone full extremist now which is why democrats have learned now that whatever the disagreements they may have with a democratic candidate to always vote democrat in every ballot because if they divide their vote the republicans who are united in their extremism will all vote the same way to the most extremist candidate. .
@@lawtraf8008 I think it is fairly clear that the Republican party has been tracking rightward basically since Reagan. They’ve become so successful as to force the Democratic party rightward (at least economically) throughout the Clinton era into the Obama era and up to the present day. Currently, the Republican party has a clear balance toward a populist, nativist, authoritarian ideology that is far-right. But, I would counter that there are many party members that still track moderate, whose voices are now just less important. People like Mitt Romney, Chris Sununu, Susan Collins, are all examples. Even Kevin McCarthy had been seen as a fairly moderate republican in the past. That last example illustrates the danger of having a two party system because the extreme wing of the Republican party has caused moderates to become more extreme in order to hold onto positions of power. A multiparty system isn’t completely immune to this happening, but it would likely cloister institutional power in the hands of the moderate parties who could differentiate themselves from the extreme wings of the political spectrum, rather than simply the current left-right divide.
I would like to mention that political chaos doesn't just exist in America. In Germany, its government has to deal with a party in the coalition rebelling against the rest, and the Netherlands' government recently collapsed because one policy couldn't be decided upon. Not to mention that these governments take months to form, which is especially bad for national security - the delays in the 2000 election likely had an effect on why the government failed to stop 9/11, as forming the government took longer. While polarization may be a massive problem in America, it's not much better in countries with proportional representation.
It sounds like a good system, but you have to remember that the snap elections happen if the party in power calls it, or other parties don't support the party in power. It used to happen often that minority governments would lose other parties and there would be elections. But recently, NDP (socialists) just blindly support Trudeau. So, even though Canadians are turning against Trudeau now, Trudeau won't call the election as he knows he will lose, and NDP keeps supporting Trudeau as they want to seem to be relevant, so we are stuck until 2025 with stupid Trudeau. In 2025, Libarals will lose big time and will have hard time coming back to power, I wonder if they will bring back Trudeau again like they did with his father.
*Conclusions:* Nothing changed and voters don't even care about issues and stances anymore. They just vote for the same party regardless. This is very depressing.
I think this is also a big issue everywhere, because these political parties always run on polar opposite platforms, so even if you do care about the issues it barely matters. O'Toole was the first Conservative I've seen in a while even attempt to endorse some liberal ideals. But when parties are running polar opposites, we get kinda locked in whether we want to be or not. You worried about climate change? Gotta vote a left wing party. Pro-life? Have to vote right wing. No liberal candidate would run on a pro-life platform. O'Toole did try to bridge the gap but it was so "Out of nowhere" that people just didn't believe him (so essentially I agree with JJ). Until we get consistent leaders willing to be a 'mixed bag' this situation is stuck the way it is...
Right, most people are not aware what is going on politically, nor do they actually look at party platforms to find one that more or less aligns with their values. Blend in a few wedge issues to sway the unsuspecting and impressionable, and you have a diarrhea soup.
Wow i feel like this video aged real fast, with the trampling of our (the people's) rights that is happening right now. I really wonder how the future will see this man. (For the record, i didnt care about the trucker protest all that much. Kind of dumb to bother protesting something thats probably ending this spring or summer.) I do however care about my rights.
The issue isn't so much needing larger parties, as it's Canada getting over the taboo of coalition governments. European elections usually lead to minority governments as well, yet parties are able to set aside their differences to form a coalition government.
The coalition governments are not democratic as you get two very unpopular parties that will form a government over a popular government that just barely got a minority government. That's straight up theft of power.
@@teriekwilliams2828 Speak for yourself. The most productive government we've had in my lifetime here in Australia was under Julia Gillard with Labor being a minority government and having to form coalitions with a number of independents. Unfortunately a number of their better policies got scrapped or screwed up by the subsequent Liberal/National coalition government under Tony Abbott.
@@teriekwilliams2828 bruh.... they actually represent *ALL OF US* in coalition... everyone eats the pie, even though the bigger minorities get 1st pick cause... well... they got it by the will of the ppl????
@@Peglegkickboxer lol what? It's more democratic because the government is represented by all different kinds of voters. Whereas having only 2 parties only represents one and turns elections into sporting events like you see in the US.
12:42 I think you should check out the German voting system! Here, we have 2 votes: 1.) Your regional representative (just like in Canada or the UK) 2.) The Party (a "state" list of party members to be more exact) => The number of seats in Parliament are proportional to the actual share of votes and every constituency has their representative. Btw, as you probably already know, there will be a General Election here in Germany on Sunday(tomorrow), and that's gonna be super interesting after 16 years of Merkel and 12 years of the same coalition government.
When Trinidad and Tobago was becoming a republic in the 70s, the commission on constitutional reform proposed this system. Sadly it was rejected and we still have the old first-past-the-post system.
@@JJMcCullough Why? This will be the first election after Merkel. Edit: I just read on a different comment you don't know much about German politics - no problem!
What the election really showcased was the Conservative party's willingness to cede ground in just about every conceivable facet of the political and cultural spheres. You'll never win any game you play if you always let your opponents define and alter the rules on a whim, and you'll never win an argument if you're letting your opponents decide the subject matter and define the language you use.
the conservative has never had a hard spoken loud leader, like robert borden in a long long time, tool lost because he was meek and shy and did not stand out from the crowd, just compare him with trump
He's interesting both because he speaks well to non-Canadians and people who do not naturally enjoy politics and he's very entertaining, but he's just one very good source among many to me.
I appreciate that, despite having strong political views himself, his videos analysing politics always feel very objective and unbiased. Anyone involved in politics knows how hard it is to keep your own biases out of analysis enough that no political side finds your argument unfair.
Another thought: Andrew Scheer tried to run as a Western Reform guy, and lost. Erin O’Toole switched to being an Eastern PCer - and not only also lost, but he got a near-identical result. If the definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result, then what is doing different things but still getting the same result?
These two heads of the conservative party sum up my view of the party right now. Scheer was an insider who lacked charisma, but represented the views of the rank and file. O'Toole on the other hand has more leadership and charisma, but feels like he is not the voice of the party itself.
It's not that clear cut, and the results were not identical at all. O'Toole actually picked up 7 new seats. The problem was that the PPC backlash cost him 9 old ones, and stopped him from picking up another dozen or so new ones. The Tories are between a rock and a hard place as long as the PPC are willing to play spoiler and the liberals remain charismatic. If someone figures out how to thread that needle and appeal to both sides, then they'll be the next PM.
The second time in a row the Conservatives won the plurality of the popular vote but the Liberals form government. And that's ok, they knew the rules going in. And I know that the left leaning parties combined got a majority, but that's not my point. The point is that the Canadian system allows for a party to win less votes yet govern. If the 3rd parties were a completely different ideology to the Liberals, then the Conservatives could have more votes but less seats. It's the same concept as the US.
From an outsider perspective, at appears to me that if Canadians really want regional representatives but also want a Parliament that reflects the popular vote, they would probably like to use some of the Nordic electoral systems as a work model. Though I don't live in that region, from what I can tell, they use multi-member districts with proportional representation and have a number of seats reserved to parties that cross the electoral threshold nationally (usually 4% or 5% or the national vote), so the composition of the legislature is as close as possible of the actual vote. Of course, that would likely means that Canada would have to adopt formal coalition governments like they do in Europe, but as stated in the video, even if most parties in Canada are not that different, people are still voting for multiple parties and aren't changing their mind about it, so I'd say it's better force them to go to formal coalitions with more than one party holding ministerial posts and make the situation clear to votes about who is a ally to who (possible coalitions would probably be discussed during the election itself like it is the case in German elections). About the power to call a snap election that can only be changed through a constitutional amendment, I think Sweden proposes a good solution: there the PM can also call a snap election when he wants, but the Parliament elected can only last the time left from the previous one (so, if Canada already had that rule, this new Parliament elected on Monday would only last for another 2 years instead of 4).
Canada is huge with many opposing regional issues. The federal gov. representation has always been a problem since before the confederation. There's no voting system that will resolve all those issues. The provinces should have almost full autonomy with minimal confederation gov. for foreign affairs, trade, currency, citizenship, defense etc.. Like the EU. Constitutional changes have been the talk of town in Canada during all the 80s and 90s but failed by lack of agreement and the topic have been buried ever since.
Damn straight! As a Canadian from Alberta, a lot of us would support a system change. Though I would prefer the STV system used in Ireland to a party list system.
I would love to keep the Parliamentary system but also directly elect a Head of State (as opposed to... The Queen...). And distribute the powers more evenly between the Prime Minister and the elected Head Of State (President?)
You need to win 85% of Ontario's 121 seats out of 340 seats across canada, and you're more than half way to winning a majority government (170 seats) or almost a sure thing to leading a minority government. *It's ONE Province (Ontario) that controls the out come and put a Prime Minister into Office in canada.* In 2019 Trudeau Lost 90% of Canada, but won 95% of Ontario; Ontario put him back into power. It's not rocket science; it's not that hard to figure out how to win in Canada.
Man, JJ, you always manage to present an analysis or an argument in such an interesting and respectful way. I always feel like I'm engaged in a genuine conversation. So thankful that I found you all those years ago and to see you evolve in such exiting ways!
I think regional representation is kind of smoke and mirrors at this point. How often does a MP vote against their party? But then again I'm very supportive of voting reform.
@@CanImperator are you taking about all their constituents, or just the ones who voted for him/her? Our party systems don't allow much room for independent thought.
I think it would be good to have two MP representing the area. If one party wins over 70% of the vote, then two MP from same party goes to Parliament. If it's more like 50/50, or even 60/40, then one of each winning party goes to Parliament. Like one conservative and one liberal. I think that would represent each neighbourhood pretty well and also on a national scale? And possibly redraw the electoral district map every time census is complete based on actual population. Though, it would mean a whole lot of people sitting in parliament arguing about stuff, eating away our tax dollars lol...
This is an amazing well researched and investigatory analysis. Glad I stumbled upon this channel 2 weekends ago in the #Shorts Section of RU-vid. I've already made it through half your content I think!😂
I'm so gald you spent as much time covering the Bloc Québécois as you did with the other parties. Such a great gesture on your behalf knowing your views on Québecers ;)
yup the party with 0 and 2 seat got more view time then the third party in parlement, its like if you forget nearly 1/3 of the seat you wonder why they lose...
JJ as someone who studies government I think you hit on something very crucial in a big country like Canada that I’d love to hear you share some thoughts on following this election: people wanting more accurate local AND national representation, or people just generally being unhappy with their electoral system as it currently stands. That’s been a big fight in the US and the UK for some time now too, and I think it would really be interesting to get your take on some proposed fixes. I see a lotta comments here talking about Mixed Member Proportional (and for anyone who doesn’t know and wants to have their minds blown I’d definitely watch the German elections tomorrow. Lucas Bender just put out a great video on the German party system which will get you up to speed!). But there’s also many, many other ideas for electoral reform like Spain or Italy, which use a list proportional system, or Australia’s AV system, etc. so I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Many Albertans, and Western Canadians in general, believe that the country is too large. Our Western votes rarely have an impact on elections, which are increasingly decided by urban Ontario and Quebec. Western Independence would turn our regional representation into national representation. We could actually have votes that count, rather than being ruled by someone 3400 km away who we didn't vote for.
Most proportional systems you could employ preserve strong regional representation and reflect the actual national vote. If a conservative wins in a riding with 33% of the vote how does that provide better representation for the 66% of folks who voted Liberal, NDP, Green etc. in that riding than if they had a slightly larger riding with a conservative AND a Lib, NDP, or Green rep? FPTP is terrible at providing "strong regional representation". It's an inherently faulty way to approach democracy.
JJ just wants a $1 minimum wage and for no one to speak French ever again because he'd rather speak in a fake accent and suck off Bezos than try to learn French and understand the country.
6:00 Prince Edward Island is very much this way, where "Team Red" (Liberal) and "Team Blue" (PC) have little daylight between their ideologies, and there is tremendous "brand loyalty".
The whole country is like that because human nature is like that. Read some Haidt, it's good, if a little depressing lol. The ideological divide was extra annoying this year because libs pretended Trudeau was in the right for calling this election and that speaking up about it was "disrupting unity". That and the newly imported (American) conspiracies on the right. The intuition before reason was just extra bizarre this year overall imo.
I mean, you can look at Alberta and have an argument if Kenny's handling of the pandemic had an effect, but I would say O'Toole's platform certainly drove voters away. The fact the Liberals picked up seats in the province I think a key thing you might have wanted to mention. While, yes, the seat count didn't change, there are broader discussions that can be had.
Two seats were gained through vote splitting, as the combined PPC and Conservative votes outnumbered the Liberals. Besides, given that the PPC has a larger voter percentage in Alberta, you could also argue that Kenny being too liberal in the pandemic drove certain Conservative voters away.
@@jaredpoon5869 I agree. There's a huge election debrief that can be done on Alberta. I just felt the video, while covering some things, missed some really key points. I felt it too quickly dismissed the election as the seat count didn't really change so nothing changed. But there was a lot of real big change that did happen and even bigger stuff that could happen. Will the Conservatives lean more on the right and force O'Toole out? What is the fate of the Green Party? Will Trudeau step down? Because even though he won, he was (and likely is) unable to get a majority again. The election didn't cause much of the map to change, but where it changed was a big deal.
@@jaredpoon5869 That vote splitting was a direct result of O'Toole's flip-flopping. The polling timeline made it perfectly clear that his polls plummeted (they were already declining slowly after he came out for vaccine passports) as soon as he reversed his firearms stance. Telling potential PPC voters that he didn't want their "racist" vote probably didn't help him either.
I would agree that Doug ford and Kenny handeling of COVID as not brought out the conservative vote 🗳 even alberta lost some conservative votes and that is not good for O’toole
Can someone explain to me why we don’t just vote based on the popular vote? I’m genuinely confused, if a candidate has more votes…. They should win…. No?
Popular vote would be great in systems with ranked choice voting! In systems where you only get one choice, like Canada and the US, it could skew pretty far from the people's actual politics depending on how many parties there are and how much they overlap.
Good summary. To paraphrase former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, after 10 years in office the people get tired of you and want something else, so we will have Trudeau until 2025. So we may get Poilieve ,good or bad , due to Trudeau fatigue.
I live in kitchener and wow, I never really knew how liberal my city was until this election. I thought the liberal candidate dropping out was an easy win for the cons but they didnt even come close.
Used to live in Waterloo. I would have expected an NDP to get in instead, or the liberal MP to be an independent, but I'm glad the Greens got a seat. Presumably this is because he's a good candidate.
This analysis is entirely on point. Although I personally disagree with JJ on political issues, I think his political analyses are perfect. Well done again, JJ
He neglects to mention that every other modern industrial democratic nation have reformed the outdated First Past The Post system that allows a man with about a third of the nation's support to wield huge power. Less than 2 years in Trudeau PERSONALLY called an expensive COVID election and got The same results basically as before. You called that "perfect political amalysis". WOW! Read my comments at the top if they aren't censored.
He likely dislikes that PPC is coming up on the right of the conservatives. This is something they are not equipped to deal with and they have always been able to rely on right fringe voters to help them gain seats. JJ set it himself, up to 24 seats were up for grabs. The truth is, we got exactly what we want. More parties does allow for a true diverse expression from the voters. What people likely want is that vote to be more expressive in parliament (not bigger parties JJ lol)
@@donaldedward4951 That statement is factually false though. Every British Parliamentary government except New Zealand (UK, Aus, US, India, Japan). Only really European democracies don't use fptp.
@@dunnowy123 - "Leftists just think you're nuts"...fixed it for you. I didn't see Bernier in any leadership debates despite polling higher than the Greens. Would that qualify as censorship in your view?
IMO, having a unpopular leader actually means that most people are paying attention to the systemic problems that plague society and the inability of the current system to battle those problems, especially since it seems like the systemic problems are on a rapidly shrinking timer. I could say something about economic populism here, but I try not to get to spicy.
@@vitorsiIveira in Nigeria no Presidents have been popular, all of them have been crap Except our first who was a war hero/criminal depending on who you ask and former military dictator before being overthrown, Help lead a democratic movement that would topple the dictatorship all together and get elected our first modern president. He was slightly less shite than those who followed and those who came before.
@Zombie Skittles 2 They're not swapped, the entire world uses the colour red for left-wing parties and blue for right-wing parties, the U.S. is the one that swapped them around.
Yeah, I don't know about that one, she was down to 37% this time, which was quite a drop. That riding had been Conservative in the past before she won it.
Oh yeah, 2nd video in, I'm loving this shit. That was both the most concise and dense summary of this election I've heard yet. Being in the States, I have to actively look for this kind of information, and it's never convenient or entertaining like this. Hell yeah.
Here is a very simple comparison of our government compared to yours. We only elect the House of Representatives and they control everything. Essentially speaking, if you had our government structure, your senate would be a largely toothless body of appointees who are generally friendly to the party in charge, who appoints them, and Nancy Pelosi would be your prime minister, and your House would be more or less in complete control of everything, and elected every four years.
@@SuperballsSupervidsOnYT Actually, if the US had such a structure, all the big names on both sides of politics (Trump, Pence, Pompeo, McConnell for the GOP, Biden, Harris, Schumer for the Dems) would be in the House of Reps along with Pelosi, AOC and co.
yeah, the platform the conservatives were running this time around definitely drove me away. It really felt like the illusion of choice, either you get the liberals or you get the wannabe liberals
??? Liberal wannabe??? For Conservative to win, they need a United Country. For Liberals, NDP, Bloc to hold power, they need a divided country, otherwise these divisive parties have no power. Check the the 2021 political landscape after the election. By land mass Trudeau only wins cities and 1 territory. Even Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario didn’t vote Trudeau. They don’t matter, not enough seats in the northern parts of provinces for Trudeau to care. Trudeau ONLY LOOKS AFTER TRUDEAU, not Canada. Politicians are rewarded for winning, not for making the country better. Last time we had a Conservative Government we had a very robust economy, way less debt, and a United Canada. Under Trudeau Canada has never been so divided (I have uncles, aunts, siblings who will not talk to each other). Trudeau runs up unmanageable debt and he is destroying Canada. Trudeau has run up more debt than all our Prime Ministers combined, ( hey I know there is Covid and inflation), still utter and complete incompetence. Now we are being hit with inflation, devaluation of dollar and higher taxes. Trudeau the Greatest Divider and destroyer of Canada. This is what division does, must vote one party no matter how horrifically horrible they are. Throw in cancel culture, bought and paid for media, censorship of opposition, his disgusting treatment of fellow women Liberals. People will put on the blinders and vote in the same NO MATTER WHAT. That is divisive politics at its best. Liberal wannabes, right? Do you believe your own lies. Conservatives will never hold power unless Canada unites. Almost impossible to unite, when crooked media portrays crooked incompetent Trudeau as hero and our slim hope of climbing out of this shithole the villain. Canada is screwed.
@@littlechange540 His point is that the O'Toole conservatives adopted Trudeau's entire platform. Which he did. So we were either getting the liberal party or the liberal in blue tee shirts. This is not the same party as Harper's conservatives of yester year. It's been ten years since the conservatives won and their strategy since has evolved into just being the liberals in an attempt to beat. And it's demonstrably not working.
When the Conservatives of Canada realizes that Liberals are the center, and not the left wing, then they'll know why they aren't winning. If Conservatives move to the middle, they'll lose the far right, and if they move right, the left and middle will out-vote them. If Conservatives ever want to win again, they have to fix their skewed view of politics.
@@YouReadMyName Liberals *used* to be the centre. Since 2015 they have moved farther and farther left. The conservatives have won the majority of votes in the past few elections and now represent a more central party. Can you even name a SINGLE explicitly right wing policy that was on O'Toole's platform..?
Well he tried to remove ban on specific weapons and allow his staff the choice of vaccination and the province the choice to have vax passports. The PPC still roasted him for it and the blue-liberals were scared away from Trudeau’s fear mongering. Honestly, the conservatives were dealing with low information voters on left and the right.
It's a tricky situation. While I think being more moderate was the right we ay to go, he leaned into it way too hard, at the very least he should have used more diplomatic rhetoric and keep some policies more to the right. I bet he could have done better if in some situations he dodged questions have kept his mouth shut (as scummy as it sounds, it's usually a good strategy).
I think the fact that Ontario and Quebec has the most seats combined than any other province or territory with the Liberals basically dominating Ontario and BQ dominating Quebec makes it really hard to have any good representation. As you've pointed out JJ, this is the second time the PM won without the popular vote and the Conservatives winning the popular vote without winning the most seats. There is obviously a problem with the current electoral system but again, it is not an easy fix.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 You are not wrong, however, it is supremely unfair if the entirety of Ontario decided one day to swing to a random party and there would be barely anything anyone else could do about it (saying this as an example)
@@andygee3876 that sounds like it could genuinely happen considering the true power of "memes" Bankrupting hedge funds proves a majority of people are willing to do extermely unsensible things on a wide scale lol
Also for the cons it doesnt help with the focus on Alberta all the time, this was the first time something might have been done for issues in Ontario in terms of housing prices and such. Hence another reason why Libs stand ground here.
ever since i learned about proportional representation in civics class i have always been in favour of getting rid of first past the post. This is the main reason why i didn't vote for Trudeau this year because he made a 180 on electoral reform
@@SormonAusPol the main argument against PR i heard of would be France in 1930s. Where they had 10 different governments in 10 years and didnt get much done during the crucial time because of constant infighting and no majority
@@InFamou5Killer Apologize I was half asleep when I wrote that comment. Australia has tranferable votes. 1 candidate per seat but we number them such that if our guy doesnt win we can transfer the vote over to somone else.
@@InFamou5Killer You can easily fix that with thresholds. However, it is true that in a FPTP system, you'll have fewer parties and forming stable majority governments isn't an issue. However, that's at the expense of the voters' will.
I think Canadians are ignoring the issues in front of them, in blissful ignorance so they just voted what they always voted, it's really sad actually if you ask me
It’s reminding me of the 2017 election in the UK, although that was arguably worse for the Government that called it (the UK Tories lost their majority while still winning the election). The UK also had fixed term parliaments which should have stopped a PM calling an election like this, but that clearly didn’t work - a simple majority of MPs can change election law. I know Canada’s system is similar so I’d guess a fixed term act wouldn’t stop a future PM doing what Trudeau (and Theresa May, and Boris Johnson) did
@@kalyanvaghela4758 American for slower paced reform, Westminster for faster paced reform. If you're more left-leaning, you'll probably prefer the Westminster system, if you're more right-leaning, you'll probably prefer the American system. One of the greatest things about the Westminster system in my opinion are the debates in the house, very fun to watch.
@@kalyanvaghela4758 You can't compare electoral college to our parliamentary system directly. The US Electoral College is only used to elect their president, who (according to the constitution) has a very limited role in government. The US system has that for president. Something very much like our parliamentary system for their congress, and their senate represents their states on equal footing, as opposed to by population. The US government was set up, by the constitution, intentionally so that it can get as little done as possible. In short, the reason parliamentary politics are garbage, is because it would be the equivalent of eliminating the US president altogether, making their senate a neutered, appointed governing body, and making their courts much easier to manipulate. Canada needs a government with clear separation of powers, that work in an obstructionist manner.
@@ginch8300 it's not even about right-leaning or left leaning. If you want the government to have near unlimited power to babysit you, except when it pretends to not have that power, then Westminister all the way, if you want to be able to make your own decisions about what you do with your life, then the American (constitutional, not current) system is the way to go. It's having liberty vs not having liberty.
My whole outrage on the election came from the fact that the Bloc got more seats than the NDP despite having half the popular vote of the NDP, because the Bloc doesn't even run outside Quebec.
FPTP precludes them from learning to work together. They simply don't have to; in fact they're highly rewarded for being inflexible. Proportional representation would enable the parties to work together.
Something that needs to happen (but never will) is ending first-past-the-post plurality victories. Ranked preference (aka instant run-off) could easily fix this. Another thing I have seen few people mention is the Mavericks (Wexit). They seemed to have gone out of their way this time to not make waves for the Tories so that may be why. But after O'Toole's failure (and the success of the PPC) they may not be so accommodating four years from now.
The mavericks are so embarrassing. Being from Alberta, I spent my whole life hearing people complain about Quebec and call them silly for wanting to be separate and want special treatment, only for Albertans to turn around and justify their own separatist movement because they don't like the electoral system. Ridiculous.
I'm conflicted about trying to suggest to the PPC People about switching to ranked preference. They would be the biggest beneficiaries of an alterantive voting system, but knowing right-wing populist parties, they would turn back on them once they get into power.
Trudeau wants a ranked choice ballot for a reason - it's a way for the Liberals to harvest votes from progressive third parties and hand Trudeau massive majorities. At least, that was why the system was implemented in Australia, it was to prevent vote splitting on the right from handing seats to progressive parties.
@@fortunatejeremy Yeah, I remember all of my conservative family in western Canada being very upset about it and then it seemed like it just went away. It is funny to see so many conservatives pushing for electoral reform now because they have traditionally fought against it tooth and nail because first past the post seems like it is the only thing keeping them relevant from an election standpoint. The main reform options such as ranked choice, or mixed proportional representation would both likely result in a less powerful Conservative Party.
Im honestly quite partial to O’Toole’s brand of Progressive Conservatism. He’s socially progressive (pro-LGBT, pro-choice, pro-mental healthcare) in all the ways that draw me to broadly left wing parties. But he also opposes a lot of the lefts policies that I DONT like. such as him being “tough on China”. pro-patriotic, pro liberal-capitalism, etc.
Same, this was the first time I voted Conservative because his centrist approach actually lined up really well for me. Didn't matter though, my riding was a Liberal landslide.
@@JJMcCullough Mabey I am reading their comment wrong, but it doesn't give me a "Not persuadable" vibe, more of a "socially left, economically right" vibe. I not trying to attack you or anything, but I think it's a little much to call them "not persuadable" based on a neutral youtube comment. Idk, Mabey your comment rubbed off on me the wrong way.
I have to say as an American it feels quite bizarre listening to more liberal/progressive Canadians rail against the CPC. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are above criticism or anything like that, what I mean is just that the level of vitriol seems out of touch with the actual policy differences between the CPC and the LPC. I'm quite jealous of how the CPC in Canada didn't undercut Trudeau's covid policies too badly or give as much space to anti-vaxers as they might have. Comparing the death rates in Canada with the US I feel like there's a palpable sense of what happens when a party lets the crazies loose versus one that reigns in their worst elements. Basically, as someone who identifies as a classical liberal with center-right tendencies I wish we had a party like the CPC in America. In a world where you're never going to get everyone to agree with you, it's important to have sane opposition parties and I've just never bought any of the arguments I've seen that the CPC is as crazy as many left-leaning Canadians seem to think it is. But maybe this is just my American ignorance or Stockholm syndrome showing.
I think this is an important lesson here. How much would the “conservatives” have to change before they can win a vote from you, and how much would they have to change from losing a vote from their base. My estimate is that it is easier to lose a conservative’s vote and harder to win a liberal one.
The PPC is just Bernier’s ego in a party. He’s latching on to the whole “freedom” movement because he sees an opportunity but, the truth is, the conservatives weren’t going to make him leader so he had a tantrum.
I hope Canada's elections don't get as crazily unrepresentative as the ones in the U.K. There have been British districts won by a party with less than a third of the vote.
It is already happened. The West has zero representation in the laws and policies of the federal government. The country is owned and operated by Ontario and Quebec.
You should look up CCP Grey’s videos on Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). As both of these systems would very adequately solve the disconnect between the popular vote and the number of seats a party gets, whilst preserving our local representation and ridings.
Too complicated ... proportional representation is easy to do ... each MP gets proportional voting power in parliament. We are after all in an age of technology ... an MP might then have voting power of 1.05 or 0.95 based on the actual votes for the party they represent but EVERY VOTE will be represented every time an MP casts a vote in parliament. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid. My vote will then be represented somewhere in Canada every time there's a vote in Parliament ... what could be any better?
Proportional Representation with still some single member districts (MMP) would prevent false majorities and allow for better regional representation. If we had an elected Senate on top of that it would create a good balance.
Every Province would have it’s own party then. People do not realize how fragmented Canada really is. PR would bring that to the surface and there would never be a majority again. Elections every 2 years and a Parliament that can’t get anything done. More orders in council and less legislation.
@@talscriver5870 Oh no. No majority governments forcing the parties to work with each other to pass legislation because having 35% in polling isn't enough for someone to call an election in a bid for a majority government anymore. Unless you get 50%+ of the vote you would also not get a majority of commitee seats thus making the system more accountable. Parliament doesn't work because its unrepresentative and its been that way for a long time.
@@elliotlazarus9257 Tyranny of the majority is a real thing. Especially when the majority of voters are swayed by rhetoric over truth. In a democracy everyone votes on every issue, but everyone also has a stake (property, the responsibility of going to war). We don't have democracy. We don't even have local representation anymore (if we ever did) because all members fall in line behind the leader regardless of what their constituents want or what would be best for them. That is sadly okay with most, as they buy into brand and rhetoric and would rather not have the responsibility of thinking about important issues beyond surface level.
@@hermittmog8697 the Canadian system is a constitutional monarchy, it has never made claims to being a democracy. Voting and elections have nothing to do with a democracy anyway
Great video... One comment on the Conservative Party of Canada (for viewers): it is a combo of a western-Canada party (Reform) and a long-standing giant (Progressive Conservatives). It appears that so far, only Stephen Harper has been able to hold these two volatile elements in a common bond.
@@michaellebreton4294 Any party that would deny climate change is real can't be defined as "progressive". The current leadership wants the party to be progressive, but it's grass roots would dearly love to go back to the 50's.
12:53 I disagree. I feel the electoral system in Germany (Additional Member System with a 5% threshold) and its functional federal system proves that those 2 concepts aren't necessarily opposed to each other. I also disagree with the notion that Canada has too many parties. It only really has about 5 - 6 parties that matter on a federal level, and fewer depending on your province. That is far from too much, and increasing factions in 2 big parties (like in the US) instead of having a more diverse and representative parliament will just lead to a more dysfunctional political system, with fewer people satisfied by their leaders.
Canada has too many competitive political parties with similar ideologies for a FPTP system. The number of MPs that win their seats with under 40% of the vote is astounding. Of course, having 5-6 parties in a German style MMP system would not create any issue in terms of vote splitting, but it is problematic in a FPTP system.
I think I mostly agree with your first point. But for the second point, I think he means too many parties for our current system. If it was proportional representation that would be a completely different story
@@charlesmadre5568 I completely agree with that, which is why I think all legislatures around the world should use a fully-proportional system with a threshold of 5% or below.
I found it interesting that you skimmed over the most critical result of this election, being that Trudeau extended his control for 4 more years. The importance is clear with regards to the financial implications of the pandemic. When the dust settles here and our newly deteriorated economy becomes apparent he would of had no way to secure his spot. He snuck this in just before we start to wake up to a grim reality. A truly deceitful move, but hey that's the game. Cheers and thanks for all the great work.
Given his current and continually declining popularity, and how people are gonna wake up eventually and realize how fucked they are because of him, I wouldn't be surprised if he got Kennedy'd.
@@Alyrael people won’t do anything because Canadians don’t do anything. We won’t vote him out because we deserve this until we, as a nation, take a stand agains our government by voting out both of the big parties and end the two party tyranny
I agree with you. Unfortunately this PM is so drunk on his percieved power that he continues down this road to ruin because there is no way he is ever wrong. He follows the political path of woke, the religion of climate, inspired by socialism, and an insatiable appetite to be a world leader. Even the senior liberals are pulling their hair out. Canadians who keep supporting this delusional leader won't be happy until we completely fracture this country and lose the social programs we did have. People who don't have the means to look after them selves will end up in peril. The arrogance of young progressive thinkers is that there is no end to the money. There is only a small percentage of society that can actually create wealth out of nothing and the rest of society that lives off them. That doesn't mean there is no value in the latter but we need to understand how we function as a society and we have to have a viable economy before we can enjoy the benefits from it. We unfortunately have a PM that has given up the hard work and sacrifices of previous Canadians and handed over our Canadian sovereignty to foreign interests.
ive already decided if he gets voted back in one ore time im done with canada and im moving south.....im sick of being dragged through the dirt in my own country by someone who dosnt give a crap about its citizens
