this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023

206 points (99.0% liked)

Canada

9621 readers

918 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

206

Big Real Estate Executives Among Top Donors to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives (pressprogress.ca)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Big Surprise, faux populist backed by real estate moguls

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 years ago

Wait a sec, you're telling me a career politician and landlord isn't a working class hero??

[+] [email protected] 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is no surprise. PP is just a fascist version of Trudeau. Nothing will change except laws targeting the lgbtq community and relaxing environmental regulations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is there even a good choice to vote for?

[+] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

But it is basically a 2 party system if only libs and cons ever win. It's a circlejerk.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is what I'm referring to. In effect it's a 2 party system, which is frustrating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

it’s a 2 party system

It's not, though. FPTP is not a party-based electoral system.

Which, to be fair, is the basis of its criticism, as people want to vote for parties instead of individuals. There are party-based electoral systems, some of which have been suggested as being suitable for use in Canada. But until we get around to actually changing the electoral system we don't have a party system. All we have is individual representatives.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.

There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system

No. It makes absolutely no consideration for parties. It is not a party system. Period.

There are party systems. Many believe we would be better off with a party system. But FPTP is not one of them. It is a single representative system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Didn't read the bracketed text immediately after the quoted text, did you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

You're wasting your breath with this one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Of course not. Brackets signify that the words contained within may be an interesting aside, but unrelated to the topic at hand. I'm quite sure it was an interesting aside, but the topic at hand is interesting enough for me right now. I can always come back to read that aside in a few months if I am looking for a new topic.

We can quote other segments not left as asides if you want, though.

The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate.

Under FPTP the only voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to decline to vote. There is no option to vote against a candidate. Maybe there is some electoral system out there that provides that, but FPTP is not it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Given your intentional obtuseness, this will be my last response.

FPTP means the only votes that matter are those for the candidate with the most votes. It also means that a majority isn't required to win, particularly if there are more than two choices as we typically have in Canada. Therefore, the only two winning strategies are to get a simple majority or to get a plurality without sufficiently outraging those who oppose you to actively vote for the second-likeliest vote, reducing vote-splitting and upsetting the norms. Not voting, as you disingenuously suggest, merely increases the odds of the person you're opposed to having win actually doing so. You can use whatever gradeschool-level language typically found in alternating caps to refute the point, or you could read just about anything written about the flaws of FPTP and see my exact scenario mentioned.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It also means that a majority isn’t required to win

Not true. The winner is always that who receives the most votes. Literally the majority.

Yes, I know those weirdo Americans might call that a plurality, but this is Canada. We speak Canadian English. You know, the one that includes a "u" in colour, refers to the letter Z as "zed" and not "zee", and defines majority as "the number by which the votes for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank."

plurality

Oh. Haha. There it is. Of what interest is Canada to an American anyway?

Therefore, the only two winning strategies

The only winning strategy is to get the most votes. There is no "I do not vote for that guy" option available to voters under FPTP. I don't know what system you are envisioning which provides that, but FPTP is not it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Canada is a two-party system, we just happen to have more than two parties in that system.

Edit: downvotes? Really? 2016 and the broken Electoral Reform promise was not that long ago do we have to explain proportional and ranked voting systems and the flaws of first-past-the-post again?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

The NDP has about as good policy as you're going to get in Canada if you care at all about the working class.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Joke all you like, but they're counting on EXACTLY that. "I hear Trudeau sucks but these guys have no plan. Okay, pick them"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Canadians tend to vote out than vote in. I know there are more parties than liberal or conservative but in our entire history there hasn't been a parliament that hasn't been the main two. There really isn't any good options and it's infuriating.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is to build more housing, so it stands to reason that he would align himself with people wanting to build more.

Canada does have the lowest number of housing units per capita in the G7. It's not like it isn't something we don't need.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Makes sense at first, but REITs mostly don't build, they mostly buy existing properties and collect rent.

It makes sense to align with developers; it doesn't make any sense to align with rental property managers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Landlords aren't developers lol

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago

I am far too poor for this timeline.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

There is nothing that trump lite offers that is of any use to Canada.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

No way!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

While I'm opposed to corporate money in politics, the amounts these executives contributed seems rather paltry.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Due to donation limits ($1700 / year), it's hard to amount to much unless you sprinkle it across all members of the household and donate to the party and EDA too.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=lim&document=lim2023&lang=e

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

@OminousOrange @mooniyaw You can thank #JeanCretien for getting #Corporate money out of politics (at least, by direct donations). Surprisingly, #StephenHarper reduced personal contributions even further (a way of owning the #Libs as at the time their party was much better at attricting lots of small doners).
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/pms-donation-plan-stuns-party/article25428665/ #cdnpoli

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Surprised pikachu face

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

If you liked trump then Squinty McProudBoy is your guy. If you are a decent human being find someone else to vote for. A vote for bitcoin milhouse is a vote for racism, white supremacy, misogyny, and hatred.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

When election hopes are based on how much money your campaign has and how much of it is corporately supported ...

... it's starting to look more like a plutocracy rather than a democracy

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I always hate how we conflate developers and speculators when we talk about real-estate companies. Like, if somebody supports the automobile industry, you'd assume they mean factories and not dealerships.

Hearing Poilievre has support from builders would be good news in a housing crisis. Hearing Poilievre has support from investors and speculators who are gouging people and exploiting the housing crisis, not so much.