The Canadian Liberal’s win is a Tom Carper loss
The evidence from Canada suggests that the Democratic Party’s strategy of taking such good care of the 1% (in the guise of being hard nosed austerity hawks) might be an electoral loser in the long run. From Robert Reich’s FB:
Tonight, Canadian politics veered left. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party captured a majority in Canada’s 338 seat-Parliament — thereby putting an abrupt end to nearly a decade of Conservative governance under Stephen Harper. Harper’s Conservatives went into the campaign pledging balanced budgets. In sharp contrast, Trudeau promised three years of deficits in order to more than double spending on infrastructure. The Liberals also promised to raise taxes on Canada’s “wealthiest one per cent” — earning more than $200,000 — so taxes on middle-class families could be lowered. Trudeau and the Liberals argued now is the time for Canada to invest in its future rather than embrace austerity economics, and that Canada’s rich should pay their fair share. Evidently most Canadians agree.
Actually, it’s a cautionary tale for advocates of third parties. Harper was able to “do so much damage in so short a time” because “Canada uses a first-past-the-post system, with no runoffs, for federal elections, which means that a candidate needs only a plurality, not a majority, to win his or her constituency. This is how Harper’s Conservative Party could control 53.9 percent of the seats in the House of Commons after the 2011 election despite winning only 39.6 percent of the popular vote.”
http://harpers.org/archive/2015/10/256735/
No, it’s actually not, provided you know anything about game theory. Our system cannot produce more than two viable parties at a time.
That said, the only way we form new parties is having the old ones collapse — and the only way they collapse is when new options appear.
Which side are you on, John? Care to admit it?
The Liberal Party did not “collapse,” nor did the NDP. Rather, the electoral system permitted the election, and reelection, of a prime minister scorned by the overwhelming majority of Canadians, a Paul LePage spread coast to coast.
That’s nice, but the post was about infrastructure spending on borrowed money. What say you?
What exactly is the difference between the NDP and the Liberals in Canada? Seems incredibly self defeating to have two parties divide what is a majority vote (over 50%) for the left in Canada
John: I wasn’t saying the Canadian party collapsed. I was saying that the only way the US gets a new party is when one of the old ones collapses. Hasn’t happened for a long time, but it might happen once the GOP loses next year.