Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
Have an Extranet Account?Login here!.
One step! Just fill these fields in.
Your password was changed successfully.
Please check your email for a link to finish the account creation process.
You must click that link to be able to comment.
The website was not able to match you to your membership.
If you have just filled in your renewal or membership application form please wait 2-5 business days while your Provincial-Territorial Association processes your application.
Click here to join the Party or renew your membership.
If after waiting 5 business days you are still having troubles or you are a current member, please fill out this form and we will assist you shortly.
Thank you for activating your account. We have automatically logged you in.
Sorry, this activation link does not work. Your account may already be activated. Please try to login or contact web@email.liberal.ca for assistance.>
Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
We hope you enjoyed our second 2013 LPC Leadership debate.
Do you want a chance to vote for the new Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada? Click here and sign up as a Supporter.
Get to know the leadership candidates and their platforms and find out when and where will be the next debates on our 2013 LPC Leadership web page.
February 2, 2013
February 2, 2013
February 2, 2013
Our riding association had 27 of us gather at a venue to watch the interviews. Most thought the format to be useful in getting to know each candidate better than in brief sound clips with 9 people trying to get a sound bite in under a true debate format. However, we’ve had the introduction now so another contrasting format should be used for the next one. We had a respectful dialog afterwards about the respective candidates based upon the perceptions of attendees. All in all a good insightful gathering. I recommend it for other Liberals.
I was disappointed that the foundation issue upon which all other issues depend, was not discussed yesterday. We do not seem to remember the imperatives of previous election campaigns:
“The New Democrats and Green Party have no chance of forming government and the only way to stop the Conservatives is to vote Liberal, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff says.”
“Two weeks to go and the choices are narrowing . . . and there are only two parties that can actually form a government and run this country. Conservative or Liberal,” he said.
“If you don’t vote Liberal, Canada will go into a major economic crisis,” said Ignatieff, who joined with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion at a morning campaign stop in Stoney Creek.
http://www.thestar.com/news/politics/federalelection/2008/09/27/ignatieff_makes_pitch_to_ndp_green_supporters.html
Fortunately, the leadership candidates are beginning to post their policy positions on democratic reform on their websites:
“I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every Member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians …”
(Justin Trudeau)
https://justin.ca/democratic-reform-trusting-canadians/
“The preferential ballot fundamentally addresses the challenge of vote splitting.”
(Marc Garneau)
http://marcgarneau.ca/support-marc-and-his-plan-for-democratic-reform/
“There is a very good chance that a large majority of the people who voted for the NDP candidate (who came third) would have listed me as their second choice. None of us have any doubt that had we had a preferential ballot system in place, I would still be the MP for Willowdale.”
(Martha Hall Finlay)
http://2013.marthahallfindlay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2013-Comment-Government-Democracy-and-Civic-Engagement-Electoral-Reform.pdf
The only reason I can see why Liberals would support preferential voting over proportional representation is that they believe, as MHF does, it will give them an electoral advantage. This could backfire – especially if the NDP point this out and rightly say that they are the only party supporting true electoral reform.
http://thoughtundermined.com/2013/01/10/preferential-voting-isnt-the-solution-some-think-it-might-be/
MHF might also be surprised at who people might give their second vote to. These blogger does a good analysis of the 2011 election with the available data:
http://thoughtundermined.com/2011/04/15/pondering-av-in-canada/
“That kind of leadership demands a new commitment to rise above the petty rivalries of our politics, and the short-term cynicism of divide-and-conquer tactics.”
(Justin Trudeau)
http://justin.ca/we-need-a-new-generation-of-canadian-leadership/
I agree with Justin Trudeau’s words, but feel that his choice of preferential ballot (alternative vote) for our voting system would institutionalize divide-and-conquer into a new guise. Why play that game?
There is much misunderstanding among the candidate about electoral reform. It would seem that some have not done much homework.
The Liberal policy of PV can use some evidence-based scrutiny.
Joyce Murray was involved in the two BC referendums on STV. She has a handle on this issue.
The sound quality on this recording is absolutely terrible! With the sound cranked up to full bore on my computer, which is usually enough to scald my ears, I couldn’t hear it clearly because it was so faint, and there was an annoying sound that resembled nothing more than the sound of an old-fashioned projector (a cheap one!) I have not been available to watch either of the first two events, due to prior commitments, and it is disappointing beyond belief to not be able to review them… Can this be fixed?
The sound on the Winnipeg “debate” kicks in at about 9-10 minutes when the broadcast goes live nationally. Too bad someone did not edit the initial portion out.
Watch it on CPAC. There is translation of French to English on CPAC too.
Caroline…I had a similar problem with the sound during the first debate.
I posted a message here to let people know. Andre said he would pass this along. Sadly, the sound for the Winnipeg debate was just as bad, if not worse. Like you, I had my speakers cranked up as high as they could go.
I’m not a big fan of Tim Harper, writer for the Toronto Star, but I have to agree with his headline and comment in today’s issue.
Headline: “Federal Liberals fail to create a buzz.” His comment that best sums up the debate for me: ” In the final analysis, Saturday’s two-hour extravaganza of torpor (a state of mental inactivity) only matters to Liberals”. Perhaps I was just too tired from shoveling snow all day. I don’t think so. :-)
I’m getting really annoyed with the way this Blog site functions. I’ve now had to change my book mark for the Blog 3 times. I had to change it last week. Today, when I wanted to check on this blog (I wanted to read what others thought about the debate) and clicked on my bookmark I was taken to a page about signing up as a member / supporter. There was no link from this page to the Blogs. I felt manipulated and used. Bad decision on someone’s part to try and control moi.
If there’s one thing that I really dislike is when someone tries to take away my control. I find that this site “only matters to Liberals”… to quote Tim Harper again.
I signed up to be a supporter when it was first made available. Last week I registered to be able to vote. I’d still love to take out a membership but I simply can not agree with the Purposes stated in the LPC Charter. Said purposes make no sense to me. I’ve expressed that many times here over the last 8+ months.
Call me frustrated ! … Wolf
Ray, I thank you for the links to the topic of democratic reform. I am for trying something different other than the first past the post system we have now. The preferential ballot at least gives a voter an influence as who may be ultimately elected. The present system leaves the majority of voters out in the cold creating a disconnect and cynicism. We need people involved in democracy and need to find a way to connect more voters to the process.
Peter, you must live in an area where there are competitive election races, where a preferential ballot may (or may not) result in a change of MP.
To really connect more voters to the process we need to make sure that votes in both competitive and non-competitive parts of the country have an effect the makeup of Parliament & government.
Yes, I think to represent a riding you need at least 50% + 1 of your constituents favoring you relative to others who are asking for your support. The preferential ballot I think will do that. It will make elections more exciting and perhaps rise to a spectacle that attracts people as our sports and entertainment industry does now. Politics should be an equal pillar to that. Politics has such a negative connotation. It should be viewed as the glass half full, not half empty as it is now. Our politics builds our nation and that should be as important as a score in a NHL game or who wins the Stanley Cup. Of course, if everything is run out of the PMO, the House of Commons is just a rubber stamp. That needs to change too. MP’s need to take back their collective power. Each MP can make a difference. It takes a snowflake to move to create a political avalanche.
It is true that politics builds our nation. Because of the single-member ridings, I don’t think the preferential ballot will help with that.
Stephane Dion discusses the value choosing a voting system that supports nation building his April, 2012 article. For example:
“Our voting system weakens Canada’s cohesion. For Canada, the main problem of this distortion effect is that it artificially amplifies the regional concentration of political party support at the federal level. With 50% of the vote in a given province, a federal party could end up taking almost all the seats. But with 20% of the vote, it may end up not winning any seats at all. This is how Ontario appeared more Liberal than it really was, Alberta more Reform-Conservative, Quebec more Bloc, etc. During all the years that the Bloc dominated Quebec’s representation in the House of Commons, they never received a majority of votes from Quebec.”
“This regional amplification effect benefits parties with regionally concentrated support and, conversely, penalizes parties whose support is spread across the country without dominating anywhere. A party able to reach out to voters across the country is disadvantaged compared to another whose base is only in one region.”
“My main concern with all this is national cohesiveness, even national unity. I do not see why we should maintain a voting system that makes our major parties appear less national and our regions more politically opposed than they really are, favouring regional parties at the expense of national ones concerned with reconciling the regional interests of our vast country. I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our voting system.”
“Canada is a diverse country. So in the interest of national cohesion, it is preferable that national parties not be at a disadvantage compared to those with most of their support lying in a single region.”
http://ideefederale.ca/documents/Dion_ang.pdf
Great post, Ray! I look forward to reading the document in more depth. I like Dion’s pitch for a different voting method to more accurately represent political opinion across the country. Most Canadians suspect that we are more alike than we are different and the present method of voting magnifies our differences rather than acknowledges the bonds that connect us. However, any voting system that takes more than a paragraph or two to explain is not likely to be widely accepted nor supported. Yet, we must do something different for the reasons Dion articulates. We need to build a nation not tear it apart. Thanks for sharing.
The ability to explain the mechanics of a proposed new voting system should not be of great importance. Choosing a voting that represents the best Canadian values & principles is the priority, I think, and this should make explaining it a piece of cake.
On another topic related to the Winnipeg event, here is CTV’s take on the “debate” in Winnipeg or at least their talking head’s opinion. I think he was wrong about Murray not referring to the Idle No More Drummer as he just referenced Trudeau. I think the professor is right that now we need the candidates to start challenging each other on nuances of policy or emphasis in which they differ. We would then see their leadership style in action which is necessary to see how they would handle our real political opponents who offer different perspectives on the issues we face. This would be a surrogate or parallel rehearsal for the real deal in how they would sell the Liberal message. Substance with style is where it is at. If any of you know who has an influence on the format of these events, now is the time to tell them. I think this video clip is an example of how the media makes or breaks leadership campaigns.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=857118
It was difficult to tell the difference between candidates in terms of approach to the same questions given to all candidates,though, I enjoyed it. I watched or attended all debates so far. The more, the better and deeper. Attention to details of each candidate is needed. I’d like to see each candidate’s adaptation to the circumstances and the level of understanding of issues. How about cross debate?