Talk:1987 New Brunswick general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: New Brunswick / Governments Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Untitled[edit]

What an amazing result - a complete wipeout of the opposition!

It is often said that the First Past the Post voting system is a good system because it tends to guarantee the winning party a strong majority.

But a wipeout result is surely taking this argument too far.

By all means have a voting system that rewards the winning party with a comfortable working majority, but at the same time, guarantee that there is an oppsosition with enough seats to keep the government on its toes and hold the government to account.

Lopsided or wipeout result seem to be fairly common in Canada at the provincial level.

Syd1435 00:01, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Indeed. The best of both worlds would seem to be preferential voting as used for the Australian House of Representatives. Oddly though proponents of reform in Canada push for dramatic shift to proportional representation which makes it unpalatable to most Canadians who aren't interested in such massive reform. Thus, a system which really ought to be reformed, stays as is. -- Jord 04:07, 26 Nov 04 (UTC)

Proponents of electoral never seem to thing of mixtures, perhaps because such things are more complicated still. What about some single member ridings and some multi-member ridings with STV in both, and each elector having two votes, one in each method. The ratio might be 60:40. Syd1435 10:22, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

As a matter of fact models like that have been proposed in recent days in both NB and BC, however there still is not a good sell. People value the representation they have, having larger multi-member ridings sees the same number of people represented by the same number of MLAs but can lead to the elimination of the "local" representative you have in single ridings. I really don't think anything that reduces the number of one member ridings being a sell in Canada. -- Jord 19:33 27 Nov 04 (UTC)

Procedure?[edit]

How did this Assembly run? Were there alot of free votes, or was it like a mini-dictatorship?

Keeperoftheseal 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the party?[edit]

I remember hearing that they split the party into moderate/left leaning wings so as to have the appearence of an opposition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.95.62 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015[edit]

This edit request to New Brunswick general election, 1987 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link to the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer is broken. The link is here. Don'tDropThatTotoro (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Don'tDropThatTotoro (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by yourself. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]