OTTAWA – A smug man from Canada wasted no time this morning chastising Americans for re-electing terrifying liar and felon Donald Trump, despite the fact that he plans to vote for terrifying liar and asshole Pierre Poilievre in the next Canadian election.
Matt Hunter, a 36-year-old barista, took time away from attending a Poilievre rally to rant about how stupid Americans were for falling for Trump’s fascist bullshit.
“I just can’t believe that someone could look at a petty asshole running on slogans, lies, and faux outrage and think, ‘Yeah, this guy will be good for the country,’” Hunter laughed, taking a quick second to repost an “Axe the Tax, Build the Homes, Fix the Budget, Stop the Crime” tweet on X. “It makes no sense. Luckily we up here in Canada have more common sense. Pierre says so.”
“When Poilievre becomes Prime Minister next year, he’s gonna stand up to Trump. They’re so different in ways that I can’t even describe. Don’t even ask me what those ways are. Just trust me, bro. He’ll bring Canada home again.”
The only provinces where this would have any impact at all are Quebec and Ontario. Ontario has just over a third of the seats, Quebec has about a quarter. British Columbia and Alberta have just over 10%, everyone else has less. If everyone in New Brunswick voted for the hypothetical New Brunswick First Party, whoever actually ran the show quite likely wouldn’t even think of the whopping 10 votes they could bring to the table. Moreover, Quebec is the most homogeneous province in Canada, so a province first party has better odds there than anywhere else.
I’d much rather we had national parties that were looking for the best interests of all the regions, and citizens that didn’t seem to firmly believe that a benefit for someone else implies harm to them.
“Quebec is the most homogenous province”
Eh…
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/imm/Table.cfm?Lang=E&T=41&Geo=00&SP=1&vismin=2&age=1&sex=1
More visible minorities than all the Atlantic provinces, all territories and Saskatchewan and that doesn’t even take into consideration the white Anglo minority.
You could also have groups of provinces with their own party so they would have some weight to them.
Also defending the interests of a province first and foremost doesn’t necessarily go against the interests of other provinces as the same gains apply to them as well.
If you count all white people as one group, yes, it is more diverse than some provinces. Given the years of wars and political division between two particular groups of white people that is behind those divisions, I don’t think visible minorities are a particularly relevant point in this topic.
Did you look at the website? Choose all visible minorities, Quebec is at 13%, which is more than all the places I mentioned. What is homogeneity if not the % of people that are ethnically part of the majority, i.e. not part of the group that’s considered diversity?
The white Anglo minority also counts as diversity as they’re culturally different from the white Franco majority, just like in other provinces the white Franco minority counts as diversity because they are culturally different from the white Anglo majority.
Yes, and I don’t see Ukrainian, German, Polish on that list, let alone the more relevant two I referred to, British and French.
If you look at the Wikipedia page for the 2016 census you will see that about 89% self-identify as Canadian or French. So what counts as Canadian? The Wikipedia page for that says they’re mostly French Canadians and British Canadians, with a few other of the United Kingdoms thrown in for good measure.
So let’s focus on French Canadians. There are about 5 million of those in Canada, and about 85% live in Quebec, or 51% of that 60.1% who identify as Canadian in the above census.
Now, back to that 2016 census. 89% as one thing, more or less, just isn’t accurate. But 79.8% is. And that nearly 80% is more than enough to overwhelm the rest into irrelevance in FPTP voting unless those who don’t consider themselves French or French Canadian are concentrated into a few areas, in which case they won’t be completely irrelevant, but they will still only take away a few votes for a party whose primary interest was to the demographics listed above.
Now go ahead and find me another province nearly that ethnically homogeneous. And since I was never talking about skin color, instead of using the visible minority page, try out the Ethnic Origin page instead.
First province on that list, Newfoundland, 91.4% Canadian or English… So yep, Quebec isn’t the most homogenous, nice try though!
Also, not a very good tool considering that people can reply more than one thing.
“Well, my point has been proven wrong, time to focus on pedantry.”
In the name of pedantry, I could change the text to “the province with the single largest ethnic group”, which I think could be argued as a suitable definition of the term “most homogenous”. Or would it make you happier if I disparaged the smaller provinces by saying “the most homogenous province of any political significance”?
And I can’t see if it’s you who’s downvoting or not, but commenting and downvoting gives a real “my comments can’t stand on their own” vibe, which is fitting.
Again, white French Quebecois and Anglo Quebecois are two distinct ethnic groups and they’re ethnically distinct from most French or Anglo Quebecois that immigrated here more recently (those that don’t consider their ethnicity to be French or British in origin).
You would realize that if you understood the definition of ethnicity, I’ll invite you to Google that.
And yes I’m downvoting you because you’re arguing in bad faith by bringing up sources that don’t apply and that contradict you.
Don’t know why it’s so hard to accept that Quebec isn’t the most homogenous province, but I bet you’re from Ontario or Alberta so you just have a bad opinion of Quebec and don’t know anything about the other provinces.
Being the most homogenous population of any significance is neither bad nor good. If you felt that was an insult maybe you should consider why. Homogeneity due to isolationism is bad because of isolationism, which is strongly linked to the idea of regional parties at the national level. Thanks for your help in displaying the flaws in those ideologies as demonstrated by your taking offense when facts you apparently don’t like are displayed in the open.