Post-Mortem
Now that I have had time to digest the results, I thought I would give my opinion on how each party performed.
Bloc Quebecois
If there was any party that can be fully satisfied with the results, it would be them since few expected them at the outset of the campaign to hold what they already had. True, they didn't gain seats and they did get fewer votes, however, Duceppe said from the outset his goal was to stop Harper from winning a majority and after last night's results, it is absolutely clear that it was the Bloc, not the Liberals, Greens or NDP who prevented Harper from winning a majority. As much as I disagree with the Bloc Quebecois, you got to give them credit for being able to stay relevant even when separtism dies down. Every time it looks like the party has run its course, they always seem to find some raison d'etre to exist and are successful at convincing voters to vote for them for that reason.
NDP
I would say the results were mixed for them. Few in their right mind actually thought the NDP had any chance at forming government and even forming the official opposition seemed like a long shot. However, breaking the record Ed Broadbent sent in 1988 of winning 43 seats and 20% of the popular vote was certainly doable and that they failed to do. Still, they did gain seats and increase their share of the popular vote. They also won seats in 8 out of 10 provinces including ones they normally don't do to well in such as Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador so at least they can claim they are a truly national party. If I am not mistaken, I believe winning seats in 8 out of 10 provinces is the best they have ever done in a general election in terms of the number of provinces they won seats in, so that should at least count for something and never mind they came very close to winning a seat in Saskatchewan meaning they could have potentially won seats in as many provinces as the Tories and Liberals.
Green Party
As with the NDP, a decent showing, but not as good as they probably wanted. Once again they failed to win a seat, which was not a surprise for me. For one thing, Elizabeth May choose the wrong riding to run in. There was no way she was going to win in Central Nova and she should have run somewhere like Saanich-Gulf Islands, Guelph, or even Vancouver Centre where she might have had a shot at winning albeit a long one. Also most polls showed they would get over 10% of the popular vote, which they failed to do, although I was not surprised they only got 7%. Their support was quite soft and never mind it was heavily skewed towards the younger demographic who traditionally have a lower voter turnout than the older voters. In fact this may explain why the NDP, Bloc, and Greens did worse than the last polls said, the Tories did better, and the Liberals the same as the former parties tend to do better amongst younger voters and the Tories amongst older voters while Liberal support is pretty even across all age groups.
Conservatives
They failed to win a majority as they wanted, but I would still say it was a good night on the whole for them. I never bought the idea that Harper saw anything less than a majority as a failure. In fact, I suspect he probably realistically only expected a stronger minority, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140 seats. As Tom Flanagan said in an article in the Globe and Mail before the election, Harper is an incrementalists, so as long as the Tories are moving in the right direction that is what counts and for now they are doing so. If anything it was Quebec that was a disappointment for the Tories, not the results elsewhere. In the case of Ontario, I suspect the Tories weren't even trying to win seats in the 416, their goal was to make gains in the 905 belt, which they did. Now that doesn't mean it was a great result as the Tories clearly did have a chance to get a majority and they blew it big time in Quebec with their stance on the arts cuts and changes to the young offenders act. Still they made the gains elsewhere as they wanted to, so I would say it was a good, but not great result.
Liberals
If there was any party that had little to be cheering about, it was the Liberals regretably. The lowest vote share in Canadian history and second worse seat count as well as being dead in the water in huge swaths of the country (almost all of the West, Rural Ontario, off the island of Montreal in Quebec). Clearly the once dominate party is now a former shell of itself. Still, I don't think changing leaders is going to solve all the party's woes. Just as the Tories came out of the wilderness after doing poorly in the 90s, the Liberals can do the same, but they must re-build fully, not make cosmetic changes. Dion is an honourable man and I think would have made a good PM if given a chance. He ran a respectful campaign and clearly showed a vision for the future. However, as it goes with all things in life, when the leader cannot get the results, they have no choice but to step down. For myself, I would have argued Dion should have definitely stayed on had the Liberals gotten over 100 seats, anything between 80-100 seats, I would have had to look at the situation, however anything under 80 seats meant he had to go. Unfortunately the Liberals did not get over 80 seats, therefore Dion in my view should step down, although I have no problem with him staying on until a new leader is selected just in case we are thrown into an early election. However, we must not assume the next leader will lead us to the promise land. The Liberals must find a way to re-connect in the parts of the country they aren't doing well in. The party does not have a lot of money, but that does not mean they cannot find ways to re-connect. My suggestion would be that the party begin its nominations ASAP so we can have our candidates in place for the next election whenever it is. Both the current MPs and candidates should start door knocking right away as well as holding regular town hall meetings. This should not be about identifying supporters, but rather engaging people and seeing what issues matter to them. Likewise the leader should meet with the candidates on a regular basis and listen to their feedback on what they are hearing. We need to put an end to the idea we are a top down party and instead become a grassroots one. There is much talk about whether we should move to the left or return to the centre. The reality is Canadians are some of the least ideological people anywhere in the world. Unlike in the United States and many European countries were most people can cleary be identified as "left wing" or "right wing" most Canadians are neither but rather look at each issue on an issue by issue basis. That is why support for the parties is quite soft and why people frequently vote for parties of different ideologies at different levels. So with this in mind we should forget about whether an idea is a "left wing" or "right wing" idea and rather focus on whether it is a "good" or a "bad" idea.
Voter Turnout
Considering how low this was, I thought I should mention something here. I think it is absolutely shameful that 41% couldn't be bothered to vote. Many people around the world are willing to risk their lives just to have the right to vote, so there is absolutely no excuse for not voting. And claiming that no party represented their views is not an acceptable excuse either. As with any choice, you vote for the least bad. Someone has to run the government, so one should always vote even if they don't like any of the leaders. As the saying goes, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. I don't support compulsory voting, but I do hope something can be done to reduce voter apathy. I would be fine if we had 80% voter turnout, but 59% is just way too low.
Bloc Quebecois
If there was any party that can be fully satisfied with the results, it would be them since few expected them at the outset of the campaign to hold what they already had. True, they didn't gain seats and they did get fewer votes, however, Duceppe said from the outset his goal was to stop Harper from winning a majority and after last night's results, it is absolutely clear that it was the Bloc, not the Liberals, Greens or NDP who prevented Harper from winning a majority. As much as I disagree with the Bloc Quebecois, you got to give them credit for being able to stay relevant even when separtism dies down. Every time it looks like the party has run its course, they always seem to find some raison d'etre to exist and are successful at convincing voters to vote for them for that reason.
NDP
I would say the results were mixed for them. Few in their right mind actually thought the NDP had any chance at forming government and even forming the official opposition seemed like a long shot. However, breaking the record Ed Broadbent sent in 1988 of winning 43 seats and 20% of the popular vote was certainly doable and that they failed to do. Still, they did gain seats and increase their share of the popular vote. They also won seats in 8 out of 10 provinces including ones they normally don't do to well in such as Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador so at least they can claim they are a truly national party. If I am not mistaken, I believe winning seats in 8 out of 10 provinces is the best they have ever done in a general election in terms of the number of provinces they won seats in, so that should at least count for something and never mind they came very close to winning a seat in Saskatchewan meaning they could have potentially won seats in as many provinces as the Tories and Liberals.
Green Party
As with the NDP, a decent showing, but not as good as they probably wanted. Once again they failed to win a seat, which was not a surprise for me. For one thing, Elizabeth May choose the wrong riding to run in. There was no way she was going to win in Central Nova and she should have run somewhere like Saanich-Gulf Islands, Guelph, or even Vancouver Centre where she might have had a shot at winning albeit a long one. Also most polls showed they would get over 10% of the popular vote, which they failed to do, although I was not surprised they only got 7%. Their support was quite soft and never mind it was heavily skewed towards the younger demographic who traditionally have a lower voter turnout than the older voters. In fact this may explain why the NDP, Bloc, and Greens did worse than the last polls said, the Tories did better, and the Liberals the same as the former parties tend to do better amongst younger voters and the Tories amongst older voters while Liberal support is pretty even across all age groups.
Conservatives
They failed to win a majority as they wanted, but I would still say it was a good night on the whole for them. I never bought the idea that Harper saw anything less than a majority as a failure. In fact, I suspect he probably realistically only expected a stronger minority, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 140 seats. As Tom Flanagan said in an article in the Globe and Mail before the election, Harper is an incrementalists, so as long as the Tories are moving in the right direction that is what counts and for now they are doing so. If anything it was Quebec that was a disappointment for the Tories, not the results elsewhere. In the case of Ontario, I suspect the Tories weren't even trying to win seats in the 416, their goal was to make gains in the 905 belt, which they did. Now that doesn't mean it was a great result as the Tories clearly did have a chance to get a majority and they blew it big time in Quebec with their stance on the arts cuts and changes to the young offenders act. Still they made the gains elsewhere as they wanted to, so I would say it was a good, but not great result.
Liberals
If there was any party that had little to be cheering about, it was the Liberals regretably. The lowest vote share in Canadian history and second worse seat count as well as being dead in the water in huge swaths of the country (almost all of the West, Rural Ontario, off the island of Montreal in Quebec). Clearly the once dominate party is now a former shell of itself. Still, I don't think changing leaders is going to solve all the party's woes. Just as the Tories came out of the wilderness after doing poorly in the 90s, the Liberals can do the same, but they must re-build fully, not make cosmetic changes. Dion is an honourable man and I think would have made a good PM if given a chance. He ran a respectful campaign and clearly showed a vision for the future. However, as it goes with all things in life, when the leader cannot get the results, they have no choice but to step down. For myself, I would have argued Dion should have definitely stayed on had the Liberals gotten over 100 seats, anything between 80-100 seats, I would have had to look at the situation, however anything under 80 seats meant he had to go. Unfortunately the Liberals did not get over 80 seats, therefore Dion in my view should step down, although I have no problem with him staying on until a new leader is selected just in case we are thrown into an early election. However, we must not assume the next leader will lead us to the promise land. The Liberals must find a way to re-connect in the parts of the country they aren't doing well in. The party does not have a lot of money, but that does not mean they cannot find ways to re-connect. My suggestion would be that the party begin its nominations ASAP so we can have our candidates in place for the next election whenever it is. Both the current MPs and candidates should start door knocking right away as well as holding regular town hall meetings. This should not be about identifying supporters, but rather engaging people and seeing what issues matter to them. Likewise the leader should meet with the candidates on a regular basis and listen to their feedback on what they are hearing. We need to put an end to the idea we are a top down party and instead become a grassroots one. There is much talk about whether we should move to the left or return to the centre. The reality is Canadians are some of the least ideological people anywhere in the world. Unlike in the United States and many European countries were most people can cleary be identified as "left wing" or "right wing" most Canadians are neither but rather look at each issue on an issue by issue basis. That is why support for the parties is quite soft and why people frequently vote for parties of different ideologies at different levels. So with this in mind we should forget about whether an idea is a "left wing" or "right wing" idea and rather focus on whether it is a "good" or a "bad" idea.
Voter Turnout
Considering how low this was, I thought I should mention something here. I think it is absolutely shameful that 41% couldn't be bothered to vote. Many people around the world are willing to risk their lives just to have the right to vote, so there is absolutely no excuse for not voting. And claiming that no party represented their views is not an acceptable excuse either. As with any choice, you vote for the least bad. Someone has to run the government, so one should always vote even if they don't like any of the leaders. As the saying goes, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. I don't support compulsory voting, but I do hope something can be done to reduce voter apathy. I would be fine if we had 80% voter turnout, but 59% is just way too low.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:28 PM
3 Comments:
I agree with you on the voter turnout. However, by not voting, isn't the voter saying something and expressing their opinion at the same time? Namely, "I vote for none of the above". I'll bet you anything that if these people were forced to vote, they would spoil the ballot.
Unless the smaller parties (i.e. the Communist Party, the Libertarian Party, the Christian Heritage Party) run full slates of 308 candidates, there will be many with no one to vote for, so I agree most of them would spoil their ballots if voting was compulsory.
I don't support compulsory voting, however I do believe that it is an important civic duty to vote. No matter how awful the parties were, I would always vote. I would simply vote for the lesser of two evils. For example if the only choices running for PM were hard right wingers such as Rob Anders vs. a hard-core socialist like Svend Robinson, I would still vote even though both would be bad choices. I don't know which I would go for in such scenario, but I would vote nonetheless.
Anonymous - Having other parties can help, but I think even with fewer choices doesn't have to mean low voter turnouts. Of the countries without compulsory voting, Malta has the highest turnout, yet in a typical election over 98% of the population will vote for one of the two main parties. Now true, elections are almost always close as both parties usually get between 47-51%
However, my point is that lack of choice doesn't automatically mean lower voter turnout. Even in Australia where they have compulsory voting, one has to rank their candidates so although there maybe many choices, it is pretty much understood that in the final round of counting, each ballot will count towards either the Labor Party or Liberals/National Party.
Post a Comment
<< Home