3 ms·
If I understand correctly, they have a system where the one getting the biggest amount of vote wins, even if it's not even half of the total, and the other side
by nolok 13y ago
If I understand correctly, they have a system where the one getting the biggest amount of vote wins, even if it's not even half of the total, and the other side was cut between two parties (+ the historic quebec party), and the conservatives won with a quarter of the votes.
And even if you could force these other parties to merge in order to oppose a single force, you end up in the usual "bi-party" situation which is still bad.
Without changing the whole thing, I don't understand why a system like this doesn't use a two turn election, unless one gets 50% of votes +1 in the first turn, a second turn happens when you can only vote for the two who had the more votes in the first turn. Conservatives would have never won in that situation, and that shows a huge problem in the system as-is.
To take a poor analogy it asks people what is there choice between 3 shades of blue, or bright red. Most people agree on blue, but they differ on which exact shade of it, and red end up being chosen. If you had given the choice between blue and red, blue would have won absolutely because people who votes blue 1 were still very much in favor of blue 2 or blue 3 if the alternative was red.
Anyway, good luck to my friends in Canada
- jdcryans 13y agoNot really. What counts is how many MPs you get voted in, including the leader who's going to become the PM (see footnote). Let's say there's 100 counties, then you need to win 51 to have a majority government and you can basically pass any law because MPs tend to follow party lines. A minority government is when you get less than 51 MPs, in which case you always have to ally yourself with another party if you want to pass a law, or just form a coalition. Note: If the leading party's leader isn't voted in, he can swap with another MP. It almost happened in Québec with Jean Charest.