Righteous Wrath Online Community

(Parties ordered by number of MPs as of October 8, 2015)

Let's keep the dialog civil, there are no wrong votes

I disagree on the no wrong vote comment. I mean I guess its better than not voting, but yeah.... Theres at least one party with which I will consider your sanity if you vote for them. not goku. just saiyan.

Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2015, 09:55:43 AM
I disagree on the no wrong vote comment. I mean I guess its better than not voting, but yeah.... Theres at least one party with which I will consider your sanity if you vote for them. not goku. just saiyan.

If your compass aligns with a particular party then, for you, the vote is the right vote and not up for debate.

If you think someone is "insane" for voting for a particular party then you are attacking the person based on your own partisan feelings. Not cool

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 08, 2015, 10:25:19 AM

Quote from: Tom on October 08, 2015, 09:55:43 AM
I disagree on the no wrong vote comment. I mean I guess its better than not voting, but yeah.... Theres at least one party with which I will consider your sanity if you vote for them. not goku. just saiyan.

If your compass aligns with a particular party then, for you, the vote is the right vote and not up for debate.

If you think someone is "insane" for voting for a particular party then you are attacking the person based on your own partisan feelings. Not cool

I have no problems with most people's beliefs. That said, theres a certain party that does not follow what people expect of it based on its name. They have a lot of followers, people that could consider themselves of that party, except the party itself routinely goes against everything they claim to stand for.

... yarr?

Also, I did not realize there were that many parties with candidates running.  I wonder how many have enough candidates running that if they were all voted in, they could be a majority government...

Quote from: Thorin on October 08, 2015, 12:40:33 PM
Also, I did not realize there were that many parties with candidates running.  I wonder how many have enough candidates running that if they were all voted in, they could be a majority government...

There are only 3 parties that have enough popularity to form government realistically and that is Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. The green party may have enough candidates but not enough popular support. The BLOCK is niche to begin with but are capable of winning a fair number of seats but not form government.

As far as voting based only on BEST MATCH for a party, remember we have a First Past the Post system... This works fine when there are two parties / candidates however it also means that if there are 3 popular options that someone with a popularity in the low 30% range can both win the seat and represent a community, where as 60% of that community voted for someone else.

Because of this I think strategic voting makes sense in the current system, and working to torwards parties that want to change the system (Liberals and NDP) makes sense. If we want elected officials to better represent their communities we need a system that accounts for more than two popular parties.

first-past-the-post can be mitigated through the simple concept of vote-strength: each representative has as much power as the percentage of votes they received.  For example:

representative A was voted in with 32% of the total votes in their riding
representative B was voted in with 74% of the total votes in their riding
representative C was voted in with 49% of the total votes in their riding

When voting on a bill, rep A's vote is worth .32, rep B's vote is worth .74, and rep C's vote is worth .49.

This is then much strengthened by having the top two (by vote count) candidates from each riding get a spot.  Now the example becomes:

representative A1 was voted in with 32% of the total votes in their riding
representative A2 was voted in with 31% of the total votes in their riding
representative B1 was voted in with 74% of the total votes in their riding
representative B2 was voted in with 10% of the total votes in their riding
representative C1 was voted in with 49% of the total votes in their riding
representative C2 was voted in with 35% of the total votes in their riding

Now you'll start seeing that parties have power much more aligned with the popular vote.

And people will see that there's a point to voting, whereas for a long time now people in Alberta (for instance) have felt it's useless to vote because most of the province will be Tory blue thanks to first-past-the-post.

Yup, I got the list from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada

Name MPs Most MPs
Conservative Party of Canada 162 166 / 308
New Democratic Party 94 103 / 308
Liberal Party of Canada 36 179 / 245
Green Party of Canada 2 2 / 308
Bloc Qu?b?cois 2 54 / 295
Forces et D?mocratie 2 2 / 308


I think the most damaging campaign I've seen so far (or it might be intentional?) is the "ABC" (anybody but CPC), to me it is designed to split the vote among undecided voters, which even if massively successful would divide a group that's unlikely to vote in the first place

There is no one party that really connects 100% with my perspective and once again I feel like I'm picking the least worst.

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 08, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
Yup, I got the list from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_parties_in_Canada

Code Select Expand

Name MPs Most MPs
Conservative Party of Canada 162 166 / 308
New Democratic Party 94 103 / 308
Liberal Party of Canada 36 179 / 245
Green Party of Canada 2 2 / 308
Bloc Qu?b?cois 2 54 / 295
Forces et D?mocratie 2 2 / 308


I think the most damaging campaign I've seen so far (or it might be intentional?) is the "ABC" (anybody but CPC), to me it is designed to split the vote among undecided voters, which even if massively successful would divide a group that's unlikely to vote in the first place

There is no one party that really connects 100% with my perspective and once again I feel like I'm picking the least worst.

I completely agree with that. It's terrible :(

A friend of mine said a while back, he wishes there was a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party. I was like WANT (but don't know if not against some fundamental law of the universe).

Quote from: Thorin on October 08, 2015, 02:02:54 PM
first-past-the-post can be mitigated through the simple concept of vote-strength: each representative has as much power as the percentage of votes they received.  For example:

representative A was voted in with 32% of the total votes in their riding
representative B was voted in with 74% of the total votes in their riding
representative C was voted in with 49% of the total votes in their riding

When voting on a bill, rep A's vote is worth .32, rep B's vote is worth .74, and rep C's vote is worth .49.

This is then much strengthened by having the top two (by vote count) candidates from each riding get a spot.  Now the example becomes:

representative A1 was voted in with 32% of the total votes in their riding
representative A2 was voted in with 31% of the total votes in their riding
representative B1 was voted in with 74% of the total votes in their riding
representative B2 was voted in with 10% of the total votes in their riding
representative C1 was voted in with 49% of the total votes in their riding
representative C2 was voted in with 35% of the total votes in their riding

Now you'll start seeing that parties have power much more aligned with the popular vote.

And people will see that there's a point to voting, whereas for a long time now people in Alberta (for instance) have felt it's useless to vote because most of the province will be Tory blue thanks to first-past-the-post.

^ this kind of offering is what I expect in threads that start like this one did. Usually it takes a couple of days though. Well done Thorin!

I just watched this HILARIOUS video summarizing the low-lights of the first debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OyBXEF6LMI

...is there an independent candidate I haven't heard about? Because... yikes.

Although since I am in the "middle class"... and that West Wing music at the end, so convincing... ARGH, WAIT, PANDERING! :sigh:

I'd have voted Green if it wasn't for the fact they have absolutely no chance of making a dent in the PC armor.

I voted on Saturday. Hopefully it goes well and we wont be stuck with the current government for another 4 years.

Fhaha :)

(http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10863.0;attach=2840;image)

I'd make one for the Pusher and Shover robots, but we already have that party.

It's getting close to election time, time to check on the platforms.

The Liberals plan to cancel the Family Tax Cut (income splitting), Universal Child Care Benefit, National Child Benefit Supplement, and Canada Child Tax Benefit, and replace all of that with the Child Care Benefit and a lower tax rate in the middle income bracket.  So how does that affect me?

Right now I get:
$2,000 savings in taxes from Family Tax Cut
$2,160 from Universal Child Care Benefit
$    0 from National Child Benefit Supplement
$2,582 from Canada Child Tax Benefit
$1,588 from Child Disability Benefit
------
$8,330 total

Under the Liberal's plan, I would get:
$  670 savings in taxes from lower tax rate
$7,800 from Child Care Benefit
------
$8,470 total

That's based on
- three kids aged 9, 14, 15, one with a disability
- $90k income for me and $10k income for my wife

Seems like almost a wash to me.  $140 more per year, or roughly $12 per month.  Of course it's a little more complicated because we might have to pay tax on the Universal Child Care Benefit, depends on my wife's actual income, so there might be a couple hundred less dollars from the existing scheme once that's taken into consideration.

I wonder what it's like for a family with two young kids aged 5 and 8 making $50k and $20k.

Right now for that family:
$  773 savings in taxes from Family Tax Cut
$2,640 from Universal Child Care Benefit
$    0 from National Child Benefit Supplement
$1,794 from Canada Child Tax Benefit
------
$5,207 total

Under the Liberal's plan, they would get:
$  670 savings in taxes from lower tax rate
$6,975 from Child Care Benefit
------
$7,645 total

Hmm, $2,400ish a year difference, so about $200 a month better for this family of four with lower income.

Looks like this plan does indeed help families with lower incomes more than it helps families with higher incomes.  Which, as much as that means I get less help because my family income is "higher" (still broke at the end of the day, whatcha gonna do?), it still feels fairer to me for lower income families to get more support...

----------

edit

Then I looked at the NDP plan, which really will only cancel the Family Tax Cut, so it'll cost me $2,000.

Last i checked, the Liberals have /no/ plan on how to implement it's platform. They promise a lot, but no actual plans on how it'll actually afford what it's promising.

Well, when I looked up the numbers today I found a great big PDF called "fiscal cost plan", so maybe you haven't looked on their website in a while?  NDP have one, as well, which is how I know the NDP are planning to simply kill the Family Tax Cut and do nothing else for families, really.

They have a lot of extra spending planned as well. I'm just not sure where the money is coming from. They claim two years of defficits/borrowing. But can they really promise that? why does it magically only take two years to afford the extra spending?

Quote from: Tom on October 18, 2015, 12:32:54 PM
Last i checked, the Liberals have /no/ plan on how to implement it's platform. They promise a lot, but no actual plans on how it'll actually afford what it's promising.

Is that not what all politicians do? They make promises that are emotional-stirring but vague in the specifics -- so that when elected they can push for the "spirit" of what they promised without being obligated to follow the "letter". Creative accounting and statistics-pulling and PR wordsmithing goes a long way when it comes to silencing the objections of your constituents...

Quote from: Tom on October 18, 2015, 03:03:33 PM
They have a lot of extra spending planned as well. I'm just not sure where the money is coming from. They claim two years of defficits/borrowing. But can they really promise that? why does it magically only take two years to afford the extra spending?

It comes from taxes ;)

But seriously, a plan to "borrow for two years, and then we're done" is not a PROMISE to do this. Because in 2 years the constituents won't remember the borrowing was supposed to end after 2 years, so if it gets extended ("because REASONS") there's nothing they can do anyway, not like you can sue a politician for breaking a "promise", let alone a "plan", right?

Relevant (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver):
https://youtu.be/0V5ckcTSYu8

:)

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 09:24:07 AM
Relevant (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver):
https://youtu.be/0V5ckcTSYu8

:)

This one was awesome!

John Oliver not going to prison or paying $5,000
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/sorry-john-oliver-wont-be-going-to-jail-or-have-to-pay-a-5000-fine-for-telling-canadians-to-vote-out-harper

:)

NOW if he was paying Canadians to vote a certain way, that might be different (are "chuckle-bucks" legal tender?)

Heh. I think harper would spin the law such that a celebrity stating their opinion is inducement. Then eventually anyone stating their opinion, so long as it disagreed with his.

God, I'm watching the CBC livestream and the chat is a @%&#ing mess

The funny thing is it's smaller than most game streamers I follow (just shy of 6K)

Well I did it, I went and voted.  There were no good choices, though.  The only one that'd be any good in our riding quit the PC party and is running as an independent.  The reason he quit?  He says it's because he wasn't allowed to vote according to his conscience or even discuss the party's inner politics publicly.  Exactly the kind of thinking man I'd like to see elected, but at the same time independent have no power (unless there's a minority government).

Haha, i was about to ask if anyone was watching the coverage. Particularly the youtube stream. I heard about it and turned it on :D I think it looks better than shaw's feed used to. (OTA probably looks better, but i don't feel like messing with my antenna atm)

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 04:56:36 PM
Well I did it, I went and voted.  There were no good choices, though.  The only one that'd be any good in our riding quit the PC party and is running as an independent.  The reason he quit?  He says it's because he wasn't allowed to vote according to his conscience or even discuss the party's inner politics publicly.  Exactly the kind of thinking man I'd like to see elected, but at the same time independent have no power (unless there's a minority government).

Yeah, not a lot of good choices. But currently party members have no real power anymore regardless. You're not actually voting for the individual MP as it used to be. You're voting for the leader.

Very cool map: http://stephenmcmurtry.org/election_map

Based on data compiled on 308: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/forecasting-methodology.html

I might just stick to the official live results http://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e in stead of listening to people talk all night about what might happen.

Quote from: Lazybones on October 19, 2015, 06:13:05 PM
I might just stick to the official live results http://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e in stead of listening to people talk all night about what might happen.

I've literally got nothing better to listen-to/watch while I'm cleaning. :D

Also sometimes I get a good chuckle out of some of the talking heads.

ALCS Game 3, Blue Jays are up 3:1

helluva game so far

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 06:53:29 PM
ALCS Game 3, Blue Jays are up 3:1

helluva game so far

Hm, don't think I can watch it :( maybe radio :o but meh. It's mostly just background noise. Sorting books atm.

Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2015, 06:59:15 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 06:53:29 PM
ALCS Game 3, Blue Jays are up 3:1

helluva game so far

Hm, don't think I can watch it :( maybe radio :o but meh. It's mostly just background noise. Sorting books atm.

This game is CRAZY 7:2, bottom of the 3rd!!!!

Well, this site's kinda neat for a map and a bunch of extra info (like what ridings to watch): http://www.cbc.ca/includes/federalelection/dashboard/

Looks like the Liberals have almost as many seats already as they got in the last election.

uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

They're moving faster than I can post

CBC is projecting a liberal win. though not saying if it'll be a minority or majority.

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 07:30:09 PM

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

They're moving faster than I can post

Got the game on in the background while I try to figure out why the ETL build doesn't work anymore, it keeps getting my attention.  Man, the Blue Jays are just toying with Kansas now...

Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2015, 08:04:09 PM
CBC is projecting a liberal win. though not saying if it'll be a minority or majority.

It's looking like a Liberal win, just as that threehundredeight.com site predicted.  It'll probably end up a small majority.

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 08:15:44 PM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 07:30:09 PM

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

They're moving faster than I can post

Got the game on in the background while I try to figure out why the ETL build doesn't work anymore, it keeps getting my attention.  Man, the Blue Jays are just toying with Kansas now...

Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2015, 08:04:09 PM
CBC is projecting a liberal win. though not saying if it'll be a minority or majority.

It's looking like a Liberal win, just as that threehundredeight.com site predicted.  It'll probably end up a small majority.

I am not unhappy :D

Predicted: http://stephenmcmurtry.org/election_map

vs.

Actual: http://www.elections.ca/enr/help/map_e.htm , http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/


"Predicted" was almost bang-on, other than much of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (and southern BC) having a ton of NDP wins (about an even mix of Con and Lib predictions were wrong for those).


...which is actually surprising, since in the end the NDP actually got far less than expected -- I guess the "ABH" voters did not want to take a chance at splitting so they went with the likely winner just to be sure...

"
The Liberals are projected to win between 124 and 161 seats. (184 actual)
The Conservatives are projected to win between 100 and 139 seats. (99 actual)
The NDP is projected to take between 51 and 90 seats. (44 actual)
"
( actual = based on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2015) @ 10:30am EST ... which btw really shows how "first past the post" is a joke, since [ Popular vote: Lib=6,928,055 vs. Con=5,597,053 vs. NDP=3,459,826 ] -- see also http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/#votes-to-seats for a visualization of this. )





PS: "Eric" @ http://www.threehundredeight.com/ has not yet added a new post, he just addendum-icized the last one with this:
Some surprising results in the end, but the final polls of the campaign called it. Shows the importance of momentum. I'll have an analysis of the results on CBC.ca some time today, and a deeper post-mortem of the numbers here later in the week.

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 07:30:09 PM

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

They're moving faster than I can post

11:8 final score, it's like the Jays decided to be nice and let them get a few extra points just because it's the Canadian thing to do...  ;D

...and on the lighter side of things, speaking of sporting events taking a surprising turn... http://www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000003986358/how-not-to-help-an-injured-player-.html #ouch #multipletimes

Quote from: Darren Dirt on October 20, 2015, 09:10:54 AM

Quote from: Mr. Analog on October 19, 2015, 07:30:09 PM

Quote from: Thorin on October 19, 2015, 07:25:45 PM
uh, 9:2, get with the times old man :)

They're moving faster than I can post

11:8 final score, it's like the Jays decided to be nice and let them get a few extra points just because it's the Canadian thing to do...  ;D

...and on the lighter side of things, speaking of sporting events taking a surprising turn... http://www.nytimes.com/video/multimedia/100000003986358/how-not-to-help-an-injured-player-.html #ouch #multipletimes

Today's game (as I am just finding out) not so good

Too polite maybe

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

A 20 question quiz: "Who said it: our new PM? Or Derek Zoolander?"
https://www.qzzr.com/c/quiz/103221/90e0ba41-2c4a-4cc2-b7b6-ff5363593693

I am [not really] shocked how many I guessed as DZ were in fact JT. Seriously.

(http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10863.0;attach=2848;image)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A27xF46CMAA0aoK.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8D0a1J28Ecw/UGpMYsrVUQI/AAAAAAAAAp4/HZFeFgoxRlw/s1600/JustinTrudeau.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR3imAjVEAAU12Q.jpg)

dance moves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ypraEielc)

Boxing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuSpZ3_5pTc&t=4m30s)

So... consensus (?) -- our new PM is unquestionably less mature than his father was.


But seriously did anyone try that quiz? Yikes.

I don't think you can have consensus until we see what he does.

Looking at these videos the guy gets around, knows how to enjoy life and is probably the most interesting PM we have had in a long time.

His outgoing nature might be good for Canada's image assuming he isn't too silly. 

Quote from: Lazybones on October 22, 2015, 09:18:17 AM
I don't think you can have consensus until we see what he does.

Looking at these videos the guy gets around, knows how to enjoy life and is probably the most interesting PM we have had in a long time.

His outgoing nature might be good for Canada's image assuming he isn't too silly.

Agreed, but geez that's a tough line to straddle without crossing it. Especially for those in an actual leadership role (so that doesn't include late night talk show hosts etc.)

At least he isn't Trump.

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 10:15:46 AM
At least he isn't Trump.

November 7th, here's your chance to laugh AT The Donald (or maybe WITH him ... it could go either way)
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/13/donald-trump-to-host-saturday-night-live

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 10:15:46 AM
At least he isn't Trump.

Hey want a scary thought?

We had Ronald Regan back in the 80s, you know what his resume had on it? A bunch of cowboy B-Movies. If you think a Tumpnation is impossible I say to you not only is it possible but frighteningly likely (unless the Republicans field somebody else?)

Also this is a country where a lot of people can be convinced of building a wall is better than say... universal healthcare

But hey, I guess they like paying more than full price for day laborers and medication?

VERY PREMIUM, VERY

I find it unlikely because I think he doesn't actually want the job. Marketing stunt.

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 10:56:11 AM
I find it unlikely because I think he doesn't actually want the job. Marketing stunt.

How much money has his campaign spent

Find out and really think about it

This is real and it's happening

Spoiler

it's approx $2 million USD at this time

[close]

$2 million is nothing for a presidential campaign. /nothing/. More serious candidates have probably spent tens or hundreds by now.

I mean sure, some people think he has a chance, and donate to him or his PAC. And I think it would be hilarious if he got elected, but i don't know if even his own party takes him seriously.

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 11:14:58 AM
$2 million is nothing for a presidential campaign. /nothing/. More serious candidates have probably spent tens or hundreds by now.

Who needs to spend money on advertising more than 12 months before election day... when Word Of Mouth is doing a great job on its own!

btw...

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 11:14:58 AM
$2 million is nothing for a presidential campaign. /nothing/. More serious candidates have probably spent tens or hundreds by now.

I mean sure, some people think he has a chance, and donate to him or his PAC. And I think it would be hilarious if he got elected, but i don't know if even his own party takes him seriously.

I don't know about that, I mean, based on how the couple of debates went -- all Trump-focused and at times Trump-led -- it seems like maybe the other Republicans are all like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XllttBJi98#t=13m47s

Every US presidential election that I can remember, the candidates that get attention first never make it past the prelims.

Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2015, 11:14:58 AM
$2 million is nothing for a presidential campaign. /nothing/. More serious candidates have probably spent tens or hundreds by now.

I mean sure, some people think he has a chance, and donate to him or his PAC. And I think it would be hilarious if he got elected, but i don't know if even his own party takes him seriously.

Apologies, my original numbers were significantly outdated

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

The Trump has raised $5.8 Million and spent $5.6, given that we're all talking about HIM and not somebody like Ted Cruz (who has spent $12.8 million as of June 30) maybe says a lot more about the relationship between candidate, spending and candidacy, not to mention looking at just the 3 way race, there are several candidates who have spent a lot more to vie for the same attention and aren't in the "top 3".

Last updated Oct 20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

The Top 5 raised / spent (and Donald Trump)

Candidate	Total Raised	Spent	Super PACs & other PACs
Jeb Bush	133.3	24.8	105.5
Hillary Clinton	97.7	77.5	20.3
Ted Cruz	64.9	26.6	38.4
Marco Rubio	47.7	14.6	17.3
Bernie Sanders	41.5	14.3	0.0
Donald Trump	5.8	5.6	- -

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

To be effective in advertising you need to make sure you brand has awareness, even if it sucks... actually, particularly if it sucks

So why am I worried about a Trumpening, because he IS a crazy frontrunner with nothing to lose, he may drop out of the race when the money is done, but he may not

Anyway, its so early the process its virtually pointless to discuss, even though plenty of ppl int he US are... non stop

Heh, yeah. To be honest, I'm a little surprised he hasn't dropped out yet. But w/e. It'll be a fun ride :D

[ post moved into the more appropriate thread "Trump for President..." -- http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,10740.msg87645.html#msg87645 -- sorry for the derail, folks! ]