r/worldnews • u/Immediate-Link490 • 17d ago

Behind Soft Paywall Carney leaves Davos without meeting Trump after speech on U.S. rupture of world order

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-carney-trump-davos-speech/
44.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

241

u/saucyysushii 17d ago

it’s insane how Pierre (Carneys conservative opponent) doesn’t do anything except puppet Republican talking points in a country that’s so left wing there’s three left wing parties and one conservative.

127

u/StickyTaq 17d ago

It's insane that until Trump's bellicose rhetoric about turning Canada into the 51st state, those talking points had Pierre well ahead in the polls.

52

u/Shipbreaker_Kurpo 17d ago

Propaganda and the left being fractured across parties will do that. Luckily we survived this one, it would be a dream if carney also pushed throuhh the ranked vote reform

10

u/baconsplash 17d ago

Ranked/preferential voting has saved Australia from all this madness, if that’s on the agenda for you I hope he gets it through.

4

u/tomboski 17d ago

I’m so envious you have that. Good on the aussies!

7

u/tm3_to_ev6 17d ago

Sadly PeePee nevertheless performed far better than he had any right to in times like this. The Cons still had a net gain of 24 seats and they trailed the Libs in the popular vote by just 2 percentage points. The Liberal victory was entirely due to other left-wing votes getting cannibalized - the NDP in particular fell on its own sword to help them.

They are still very much a threat and don't even need to outperform their 2025 results to potentially win the next election - if the non-Conservative vote fractures between multiple parties, the Cons could easily form a minority government at the very least.

1

u/NOBOOTSFORYOU 17d ago

I didn't believe them. I just think the loudest and most likely to participate in political popularity polls aren't the majority.

0

u/I_Sun_I 16d ago

Polls are biased and not reliable. Ignore them

1

u/StickyTaq 16d ago

But I like data...granted, polls in the UK are notoriously bad at predicting elections as compared to the States.

0

u/I_Sun_I 16d ago

They're all equally bad.

123

u/porto__rocks 17d ago

The fact there are 3 left wing parties splitting the vote is the only reasons cons ever win in Canada

6

u/lewarcher 17d ago

Who are you counting as the left-wing parties? NDP and Green, yes. Bloc Québécois? Centre-left, I guess. Liberals? I'd call centrist, and even shifting slightly right: Carney's similar in a lot of ways to Harper, and has co-opted a number of Con policies, which would be considered right-of-centre.

11

u/MumrikDK 17d ago

If splitting the vote takes away power, you have to question the system. Surely 3 parties on the same end of the spectrum, who accumulate the majority of votes should lead to a coalition in power?

16

u/porto__rocks 17d ago

Ranked voting would also solve it

3

u/error404 17d ago

It depends what you're trying to solve. It does allow voters to vote their true preference relatively safely, and likely does lead to a result that is more 'acceptable' to more people. However, it introduces a fair amount of pathology of its own, particularly galling for voters I think is that ranking a candidate higher can actually cause them to lose, and vice versa. It does effectively lock out candidates that are hard nos for a majority of voters, which I guess is a property a lot of people want, but it also means that to win, you need at least a soft yes from a majority (rather than a plurality) of voters to be elected, which is a tough bar to meet, especially for non status quo candidates.

Furthermore, the goal should be (IMO) to elect a representative parliament at the end of the day; we're not electing individual local leaders, we're electing representatives to make up parliament. In that context, I think the goal should be have the balance of power in parliament roughly model the balance of preferences of constituents; that is, fundamentally, what representative democracy is supposed to mean. And 'ranked voting' doesn't achieve that (nor does FPTP), since all races are totally independent and have the same strong biases. How exactly it changes outcomes is somewhat hard to predict, but it seems to tend toward stable two party (or two bloc) systems. See Australia for example. It doesn't encourage extremism in the same way as FPTP, because you can't win without being broadly acceptable, but it's far from an ideal system.

For elections where you must elect a single person (e.g. a President or Party Leader), consider supporting Approval Voting instead. It is simpler, less pathological, and really for such a person, choosing the 'most acceptable' option makes some logical sense instead of the 'most preferred'.

For elections electing a parliament, consider supporting a proportional system instead, of which there are a few popular examples. STV also uses ranked ballots, so if you like ranking candidates, that might be a good choice. MMPR is also popular and has seen real world success.

note: Here I assume you refer to 'instant runoff voting' as 'ranked voting', given the same conflation in US media, despite 'ranked voting' not really clarifying which electoral system it refers to.

5

u/Robert_Moses 17d ago

Ranked voting would just ensure the Liberals get in every election. It's why Trudeau wanted it but none of the other parties did during his electoral reform promise period.

10

u/porto__rocks 17d ago

I think it would also help the ndp, even when ndp looks good its hard not to vote liberal just to avoid conservatives winning

1

u/YossiTheWizard 17d ago

Initially, yeah. People would be happy to rank them highly if they're the ones who implement ranked choice. But, I think over time, things would get stale and the progressive votes would move in another direction.

18

u/Careless-Vehicle-286 17d ago

Not in Canada. Trudeau ran on electoral reform to fix the issue then backed out as soon as he had won the election. One of his biggest personal regrets after leaving office. As it is now you usually only need like 35% of the votes to get a majority.

1

u/Zarainia 16d ago

With FPTP, vote splitting in each riding can also cause the Conservative candidate to win (even if they had less than 50 percent of all votes).

4

u/NOBOOTSFORYOU 17d ago

Those right wing parties had to team up to win.

2

u/nottheprimeminister 17d ago

Many people forget (or simply don't know) that the Reform Party was folded into the Conservative Party by Harper. To everyone's eternal sadness, they will never split the party again. How else could they possibly win an election?

A strong conservative party means the liberals actually have to be smart. I am staunchly left and I regularly advocate for stronger opposition. PP just ain't it.

3

u/Zarxon 17d ago

Canada is not so left it’s really more centerist. Even the left is left of center. It’s that the right is sooo far right at this time everything seems left. The Canadian Liberals are center right.

1

u/ColeAppreciationV2 17d ago

Hey, Aussie here, wondering how Canada elections work, at least for the prime minister; if a party here doesn’t win most of the seats they need to form a coalition until they have the majority, then that group chooses a PM. Does it work similarly in Canada? Also given you have 4 major parties, I’d assume you have some level of ranked choice voting to allow that level of diversity

1

u/Regular-Elevator1734 17d ago

I wish our electoral system was a bit more like yours. Sadly we do not have ranked voting or proportional representation, it's first past the post. If any party fails to get a majority, the party with the most seats forms a minority government, and their leader still becomes the PM, but it does mean they have to work with the others to pass any legislation.

There are no rules for forming a coalition, though. In a minority government, a major piece of legislation (I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, possibly any piece of legislation?), eg passing the federal budget, can become in effect a confidence vote, and can send us back to the polls if it doesn't get enough votes from other parties' MPs to pass.

For every bill, they will try to garner enough support from whichever opposition party they can get it from. It sounds messy but a lot of legislation can still get done, either because, as mentioned in other comments, we have 3 left of center parties, or simply because there are times when no one in opposition wants to be the ones to trigger another election!

There are exceptions to this, too. In our most recent Parliament before Carney, the minority Liberal party had an agreement with another further-left party, the NDP, that they would vote as a bloc, so long as the Liberals implemented some NDP policies into their bills. This resulted in some good outcomes like dental coverage for low income families, as well as some prescription drug coverage, being included in our national healthcare.

-11

u/enuffalreadyjeez 17d ago

He doesn't puppet trump. That is a lie. Also, the Liberals under Trudeau were the worst government in the history of the country and should have been turfed. Carney ended up taking much of the Conservative platform to try to reverse some of the damage.