Canadian Election

[doulos]

What a shame from Liberals and NPD, they are crying and threating everyone with their coalition even if the Conservatives win legitely.
The Bloc would have the balance of power and by giving their support case by case, they will be the biggest winner of this election

I'm not sure I understand your point. The incumbent gets first crack at forming government. That's the way it always has been and if they form a coalition (which I still think is easier said than done, and history is not on their side that it will happen) it's because that's how it is setup to work. Has nothing to do with whining. If the Conservatives have a plurality, but not a majority, they have not legitimately won anything, other than a plurality. That's just the way it's setup, and has always been setup.

I do agree that the Bloc would be smart to work whoever will give them the most concessions though regardless of which party that is.

[Nehithaw]

How about this? The Liberal Party and NDP join forces, just like the Conservative Party did, so that there is an even playing field. One team has stacked the deck, this would even things out a little more. No more splitting votes and possibly less religious influence on government, with the aim of having less religious fanaticism in society.

[lobo1969]

What a shame from Liberals and NPD, they are crying and threating everyone with their coalition even if the Conservatives win legitely.
The Bloc would have the balance of power and by giving their support case by case, they will be the biggest winner of this election

No party wins anything automatically if they don't have a majority of seats. But the incumbent prime minster has the first right to form government that has his confidence as written by the constitution:

"By constitutional convention, the governor general must ensure that the country has a prime minister at all times. In addition, a prime minister re-elected with a minority remains in office until he or she secures confidence or is defeated in the House. In a minority situation, this means that the prime minister “can test confidence first because they remain in office until they resign or are dismissed.” A prime minister’s decision to seek confidence when his or her party has fewer seats than the others will likely be contested by other parties, but the right of a sitting prime minister to seek confidence first and meet the House prevails. "

Conservatives could win the most seats but without a majority and without an ability to out maneuver the Liberals in forming a coalition they will be relegated back to opposition. They are not entitled to anything else, there is no such thing as a 'legit' win other than a moral victory if they have less than the 170 seats required for majority rule.

[doulos]

Maybe the CPC will win a majority government and avoid all of this anyways. I have not looked lately, but I assume there is some sort of 5-10% chance of this being possible.

[Auston'sWilly]

Polling be damned, I have a sneaky suspicion a tonne of people are secretly going to vote Conservative and they might therefore surprise with a slim majority.

Wishful thinking maybe, but I watched in disbelief as a similar scenario unfolded in 2016 when Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide.
The polling was 98% certain of it.

[doulos]

Polling be damned, I have a sneaky suspicion a tonne of people are secretly going to vote Conservative and they might therefore surprise with a slim majority.

Wishful thinking maybe, but I watched in disbelief as a similar scenario unfolded in 2016 when Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide.
The polling was 98% certain of it.

Not quite. Fivethirtyeight had Trump's chances at nearly 30%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

I do think the idea of the "shy conservative" is a thing though, yes.

[Auston'sWilly]

Not quite. Fivethirtyeight had Trump's chances at nearly 30%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

I do think the idea of the "shy conservative" is a thing though, yes.

Your link is for the day of the election. And was STILL at 70% which is meant to point out what anyway ?
3 or 4 days before the US election, a model (from the same dude who correctly predicted 49 states in 2012) was 98-99% certain Hillary would win.
Your beloved CNN even had her at 91% the day before the election.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7399671.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...a94?ri18n=true

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/polit...ump/index.html

[rataylor22]

There's been thesis' written on the errors made in polling surrounding the 2016 election. I dunno why you're so angry about it, but relax bud.

[Hoopo]

Yes Scheer is the one who needs to worry when it comes to the 'power'

But do we as Canadians need to worry?

Obviously the leader of the coalition will not be the leader of the party that received the most votes by Canadians...

I don't think there's any need to worry about a coalition, no. Why would we? If your concern is for "most votes by Canadians" a Liberal and NDP coalition government is going to represent more Canadians' votes than a Scheer minority.

Coalitions are a distinct possibility in the Westminster system and aren't a bad thing.

[Auston'sWilly]

huh?
oh right, nevermind. Mr. Antagonizer trying to stir the pile again. Never gets old.

[doulos]

Your link is for the day of the election. And was STILL at 70% which is meant to point out what anyway ?
3 or 4 days before the US election, a model (from the same dude who correctly predicted 49 states in 2012) was 98-99% certain Hillary would win.
Your beloved CNN even had her at 91% the day before the election.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7399671.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...a94?ri18n=true

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/polit...ump/index.html

I think CNN is putrid, so perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

I was just pointing out that your statement "The polling was 98% certain of it." was not true at all.

And then I agreed with other points you made.

Deep breath. Everything is going to be ok!

[Auston'sWilly]

I was just pointing out that your statement "The polling was 98% certain of it." was not true at all.

Except it was true days before the election. Links were provided.

[doulos]

Except it was true days before the election. Links were provided.

Oh I see. When you said "The polling" you meant very specific polls that you chose. Fair enough. I don't speak AustonWillynese very well.

[rataylor22]

Oh I see. When you said "The polling" you meant very specific polls that you chose. Fair enough. I don't speak AustonWillynese very well.

Amazing

[doulos]

Amazing

Isn't it though!