Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.
Europe and Africa share roughly the same time zones, from UTC+0 to UTC+3
The Americas might feel like they’re sharing the same time zones if you don’t actually look at a map, but when you do you see that the continent of South America is a lot further east than North America. South America sits from UTC-3 to UTC-5, and North America is UTC-4 to UTC-9 (with the vast majority of population being -5 to -8).
This is all ignoring DST.
No, languages without any language specified don’t get filtered.
Fair enough. Like I said, I don’t know about their general political stances; I was mostly summarising what I thought I was reading other users say.
Are they not pro-secession? And might that not cause issues in a time when other parties are wanting to emphasise national unity?
Wahoo absolutely does this.
I managed to find aoe3 and aom on the site by using a site-filtered Google search. Couldn’t find 1 or 2, but with both of those that I found being “remake”, I suspect the two I didn’t find would be the same.
It’s interesting, and perhaps highlights how vague the line is between remake and remaster. AoM I can see being called a remake (at a bit of a stretch), but 2 & 3 are pretty solidly remasters in my mind, due to being entirely in the original engine with just a bit of new QoL features and improved graphics added.
It means they can’t ask questions, sit on any committees
Oh shit, that’s pretty appalling to me.
I’m not Canadian. Just an amateur psephologist who loves talking the theory of politics. I don’t have my own sense of which party they’d rather work with.
I based that assumption on what other comments seemed to be making. Which was, yes, that Liberals would choose NDP over BQ.
Right, but if you have a non-con incumbent, the thing Brits decided was the smart move is to strategically vote for the incumbent. So instead of BQ or NDP voters voting for Liberals, Liberal voters should vote for BQ or NDP, in seats where the incumbent was BQ or NDP, to use the tactic that was popular in Britain’s latest election. In the UK there were also some seats previously held by Conservatives where the public as a whole decided it was better to coalesce behind LibDems or someone else, rather than Labour, because of past voting patterns in that seat, even while in most seats strategically voting for Labour was the way.
I think they had a longer election campaign, which allowed for setting up campaigns to encourage this so even relatively low-information voters could work out what the best strategic option was for them. I dunno if that might be part of the reason it doesn’t seem to have happened in Canada, or if there are deeper ideological or cultural reasons behind it.
I’m lucky enough to live somewhere we don’t use FPTP, so I’m not best placed to say one way or the other is the right way to strategically vote. I’m just observing that it seems interesting that the two countries have, in these latest two elections, taken very different approaches. (I will say that this whole discussion is just all the more reason both countries should adopt a real democratic voting system. IRV at the least. A proportional system preferably.)
Have there been estimates of how many advance polls there have been, as a percentage of estimated overall turnout?
because the house will elect a liberal speaker and reduce the vote number one more
Oh, is that not built-in to the 172 requirement? In Australia we always talk about a requirement of 76 seats to win an election, because 75 after the speaker is selected is able to have control of Parliament. I assumed the CBC and others were doing the same here.
edit: actually, just ran the numbers. 343 seats total, minus one for speaker, halved is 171. Assuming Canadian speakers follow Speaker Denison’s Rule, exactly half isn’t enough, so you need 172. So it looks like it is built in.
LPC+NDP could be 171 and be ok on current numbers, with the 1 GRN projected reaching a majority without needing BQ. Still…they’re 1 short of that.
Canadians, what’s the deal with “official party status”? I gather from the CBC that you need 12 seats to achieve it, but what does it actually do, what’s the reasoning behind it, and do people generally like this system?
For context, here in Australia party status is decided pre-election, and only requires you have 1500 active members, or at least 1 incumbent. To my knowledge the only thing it gives you here is more flexibility with respect to campaign financing.
This Liberal woman CBC has just finished talking to both looks and speaks an awful lot like Leslie Knope from Parks & Rec.
(This is not a bad thing.)
Oh that’s brilliant! I love it!
I am so glad we don’t have to worry about that here in Aus.
But I do find it kinda curious. This seems a little different from how things played out in the UK. Over there, the anti-conservative vote didn’t always go to Labour, but instead would tend to go to Labour or Liberal Democrat, depending on the seat. You’d expect if an incumbent is non-conservative, the strategic anti-conservative vote would be to re-elect the incumbent. That should play in BQ’s favour in terms of retaining their seats. And yet that apparently isn’t what happened.
Are the early polling votes from last week not counted already
In one province they were allowed to start counting those 6 hours before polls closed. In all others, they could start 2 hours before, but it is optional and up to each riding’s returning officer. So some ridings have it, some don’t. CBC made it sound like they don’t even know which ones have and which have not.
Watching the CBC feed on YouTube. It says only 10 of 266 polls reported, but Fanjoy (what an apt name) is ahead by over 50%. That’s pretty incredible.
Also wtf? 91 candidates? In a country with FPTP‽
Is AlternativeTo actually good? It’s always come across to me like SEO garbage. The sort of thing that felt AI generated long before LLMs came on the scene a couple of years ago. So I’ve always avoided it.
The CIA wrote a manual on how to do this. It’s a bit old and parts of it are outdate for some times of work, but a lot of it is still useful.