I’d like to point out that there are plenty of people who vote for the Liberals because they believe them to be left wing. Surely you’ve heard the trope about the Liberals campaigning on the left and governing on the right. I don’t recall hearing the Liberals campaigning to cancel the national housing strategy, but then they did, so there you are.
(To clear up one thing, Paul Martin is the MP for LaSalle–Émard, not Westmount–Ville-Marie.)
For BrainGlutton, or anyone else interested in voting structures, you might want to try and get a hold of Mathematics and Politics: Strategy, Voting, Power and Proof, which isn’t nearly as scary as the title suggests.
Honest. 
The election that threw out Brian Mulroney demonstrated that country-wide support measured as a percentage has nothing at all to do with the number of seats a party gets. After all, the Bloc, Reform, NDP, and PC party all received 14% of the vote each, but received a wildly different number of seats.
As for having elections on a fixed date every 4 or 5 years, I firmly believe that this is the worst idea imported from the United States ever! It means that campaigning, and campaign advertising, start earlier and earlier with every election, and to be honest there’s only so much political bragging I can take.
If any party besides the BC Liberals is actually organized this next year should be interesting in BC, since the election is May 15, 2005. (However I don’t think any other provincial parties have recovered from the wipeout.)
That was exactly my point. RickJay was saying that the Alliance’s goal in merging the right was not to exploit the first-past-the-post system to win. I was pointing out that Alliance’s rhetoric was that they needed to merge to win, but merging would not have given them a majority over the centrist Liberals and the leftist NDP. They could not have won that way.
However, because of our FPTP system, it could have meant a majority due to vote-splitting between the centre and the left, thrusting a party into power that was more right wing than what 2/3 of the country had wanted.
I’m split. I can understand the argument that fixed election dates mean less a politically-influenced timing, but I agree with you about these one- or two-year elections.
Also, one of the problems with the last American election was the absolute assumption of punctuality. The Supreme Court was unwilling to allow a recount because they had to have a leader chosen by a certain date. Depending on your politics and your opinion of the Florida vote, that decision either put the wrong man in the Oval Office, or permanantly harmed the credibility of the winner.
Emm, I would not elect them , as I see no need for the senate at present , but since we have the institution ,what I would do is give each province a total of 2 senators to be appointed by the premiers, regardless of populations.
Can anyone see a problem with that ?
Declan
It’s certainly better than what we have now, but I don’t see why we shouldn’t make the Senate elected. It can’t cost too much extra to give everyone a second ballot on election day, and then we’d really be getting our money’s worth for the senators.
For me, the only question is, should we eliminate the Senate, or make it region-based, or base it on proportional representation? I haven’t decided where I lean among those three choices. But if we used a single transferable ballot (STB) for the lower house, as Grey suggests, then we eliminate the need for PR, because “first-past-the-post” is no longer part of the equation.
We could have a region-based, STB-elected Senate as well. What would people think of that?
I’d say keep the Senate provincial and make use of PR there. The Senate is there to present regional views to Parliament. Since House seats are based on provincial populations let’s make Senate seats based on Standing with the federation. I.e. equivalent voting power for each province. We’re a democratic society, the Senate should reflect that. Make it 15 seats per province and 4 per territory. That way even a combined Territory voting block would have less clout than a single province, which makes sense.
Senate would then have 162 members, up from the 105 currently there.
Quebec will hate this. Everyone else might love it.
Have Senate elections set for 2 years following a House election. That would avoid having a single party sweep both.
I’m also leery of the set date for elections. I’d rather have the press going on and on about the ever immanent election than have to deal with a government playing fast and loose with money in a pre-election blitz. Yes I know, but at least now they limit themselves to bribing us during 4 weeks worth of campaigning.
(minor hijack) The latest poll shows the provincial NDP seven points ahead of the Liberals in BC.
What will be more interesting to see is the outcome of the electoral reform commission in BC. I believe they’re currently holding public hearings around the province, but from all reports they’re most likely leaning towards some form of mixed PR, which I think would be a good idea. Given how polarized politics are in BC, anything that allows other voices to be heard in the Legislature can only be for the better. Whatever the commission recommends will be put to a referendum at the same time as the next election, and if it passes, will be implemented in time for the following election.
Thought I’d do a bit of number crunching with the election results to illustrate the discpreancy between FPTP and the actual voting patterns.
First, here’s a national summary. By way of methodology:
the seat numbers and voting numbers are from the Globe & Mail’s election summaries, which seems to be one of the most accessible and comprehensive sources.
I’ve only included the five parties that broke the 2% barrier, entitling them to public funding, plus the category of “no affiliation” since there was one winner in that category.
I’ve ignored the votes for all the other parties, and calculated the “popular vote” based on the total number of votes received by the five parties and the “no affiliation” category. I’ve simply ignored the votes for the other parties, which was less than 2% overall.
I’ve recalculated the “pop. vote %” without taking into account the votes for the minor parties, and using the total for “popular vote” from this chart. That was necessary to make the projected “Seats by %” come out to 308.
-The “Seats Won” column is the number of seats actually won by each party. the “Seats by %” column is what they would have won if the seats were allocated by the percentage of votes actually received.
**Party Pop. Vote % Pop. Vote Seats Won Seats by % Difference**
Libs 4,955,050 37.1 135 114 -21
Cons 3,996,835 30.0 99 92 -7
BQ 1,673,303 12.5 54 39 -15
NDP 2,117,889 15.9 19 49 +30
Greens 581,020 4.4 0 14 +14
No Aff 17,466 0.1 1 0 -1
Totals 13,341,563 100.0 308 308
The results illustrate pretty clearly that the FPTP system over-represents the major parties, and under-represents the smaller parties. However, that’s no surprise and is one of the standard criticisms of FPTP.
However, my thesis is that FPTP aggravates regional tensions by magnifying the apparent discords between different regions of the country, by masking the substantial support for the three major parties (other than the Bloc) which actually exists across the country, as well by magnifying the apparent Bloc support. I’ll look at that in more detail in the next posts.
Let’s take a look at Ontario, which was the key battleground. Conservatives and some westerners are saying that Ontario is rejecting them, that there’s an irreparable divide between central Canada and the West, and so on, as shown by the failure of the Conservatives to make a breakthrough in Ontario.
Methodology much the same as for the first chart. I’ve not bothered giving the actual vote totals, just the percentage of popular vote that each of the four main parties got in Ontario. “Seats Won” is the number of seats actually won by each party; “Seats by %” is the number of seats that each party would get if seats were allocated according to their share of the popular vote. “Difference” summarises the seats each party would win or lose if seats were allocated by popular vote.
**ONTARIO
Party % Pop. Vote Seats Won Seats by % Difference**
Libs 45.3 75 48 -27
Cons 31.9 24 34 +10
NDP 18.3 7 19 +12
Green 4.5 0 5 +5
Totals: 100.0 106 106
Two points come to mind. First, the FPTP system is clearly favouring the Liberals, at least in this election. The Conservatives made a substantial showing, and if the FPTP system were abandoned for a system that involved PR, they would have done better, at least in this election.
Second, and more to my particular issue, these figures help show that people in Ontario did not overwhelmingly reject the Conservative party. The electoral system counted against them. In a PR system, their vote count would have translated into more seats - nowhere near a majority, but still showing that their message has considerable appeal in Ontario.
Next up, Alberta, where commentators in the media, and on this Board, like our esteemed Sam Stone, are saying that the election results are highlighting how Albertans feel alienated, because while they overwhelmingly support the Conservatives, the East doesn’t.
**Party Pop. Vote % Seats Won Seats by % Difference**
Cons 61.6 26 17 -9
Libs 22.2 2 6 +4
NDP 9.5 0 3 +3
Green 6.1 0 2 +2
**TOTALS 99.4 28 28**
The most important point about this table in my opinion is that it drastically undercuts the monolithic appearence of support for the Conservative party, even in the Conservative heartland of Alberta. The Conservatives are over-represented by 9 seats, and the Liberals have more support for their positions than the actual seat numbers show. Even the ‘godless socialists’ would be entitled to a few seats in the conservative heartland, as would the Greens. These numbers drastically underline the reality that before the Conservatives can talk about Ontario rejecting them, they would have to explain why 2 in 5 Albertans reject them - something that the actual seat totals hide.
Expanding on the western alienation theme, let’s look at the combined stats for the four western provinces. Methodology much the same, except I’m not breaking it down per province. The +/- doesn’t work out quite evenly, because of the flukey “No Affiliation” seat in B.C.
**Party Pop. Vote Pop. Vote % Seats Won Seats by % Difference**
Cons 1,772,879 46.2 68 43 -25
Libs 1,045,418 27.2 14 25 +11
NDP 789,837 20.6 9 19 +10
Green 212,248 5.5 0 5 +5
No Aff 17,174 0.4 1 0 -1
**TOTAL 3,837,556 99.9 92 92**
So again, we find that the Conservatives are over-represented as a whole in the West, mirroring the over-representation of the Liberals in Ontario. The other three parties have substantially more representation in the West than their seat numbers under FPTP indicate.
And last, let’s look at Quebec, where the Bloc’s strong showing has caused the usual concerns that the country is on the verge of break-up.
**Party Pop. Vote % Seats Won Seats by % Difference**
BQ 49.2 54 37 -17
Libs 34.1 21 26 +5
Cons 8.8 0 7 +7
NDP 4.7 0 3 +3
Green 3.2 0 2 +2
**Totals 100.0 75 75**
Again, the party with the greatest number of votes, in this case the Bloc, finds itself well over-represented. The Liberals are entitled to a few more seats, and the other three parties all would pick up seats as well. The Bloc is still out in front, but as with the Liberals in Ontario and the Conservatives in Alberta, the seat totals under a percentage system would be much more balanced, reducing the impression of monolithic rejection of the values accepted by other parts of the country.
So those are the numbers. Overall, and individually in each province, the FPTP system has magnified the lead of the most popular party. Other parties do not get the seats that their popular support would suggest, and in several cases, the smaller parties are shut out entirely, even when they have substantial support. All of this contributes to the view of a country badly divided, whose constituent parts have their own values and reject the values of other parts.
That’s the macro effect of FPTP. There’s a micro effect as well, namely within the House of Commons. By magnifying the support of the two major parties nationally, and under-representing the smaller parties, the FPTP system creates a Commons where the governing party is able to form a government without broad-based national support. A Commons allocated by some form of PR would reduce regionalism in two ways: it would ensure that all parties have representation from across the country (except the Bloc, which doesn’t want that), and it would also require the party in power to consult more with other parties to enact its legislation.
The Senate already provides equal representation on a regional basis. From How Canadians Govern Themselves:
Grey’s suggested change to an equal number of senators per province would not provide better regional representation, but only equal representation by province, which is grossly unfair to Ontario and Quebec (and to a lesser extent, BC). Any solution needs to take into consideration that there are major discrepancies in population between the Canadian provinces, and the US model just doesn’t fit here.
I think one of the problems is that this is being represented as an Alberta (or “the West”) v.s. Ontario/Quebec issue. As Northern Piper has pointed out above, this isn’t really true. Issues such as transfer payment disparities are also placed in a false provincial setting. Alberta is NOT subsidizing Quebec/Atlantic Canada with transfer payments - individual higher tax bracket Canadians are subsidizing individual lower tax bracket Canadians with transfer payments. Alberta is lucky enough to have a higher proportion of the first than some other provinces. (If you want to place it in a provincial setting, note that Ontario has been a net subsidizer of other provinces for far longer than Alberta, and still pays the lion’s share of transfer payments, and that much of the transfer payments go to people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and, yes, even in Alberta.)
And how is that relevant? The Senate is powerless.
Well, it’s relevant in the sense that the solution might be found there.
I am, to be honest, not a fan of redesigning the way we elect MPs. Proportional representation in the House has a lot more drawbacks to my eye than it does benefits. If we must create a sop to provincial interests I’d suggest the Senate is the place to start. Having an unelected and powerless Senate is a waste of money and a bit of a sham. Let’s make it useful or make it history.
True enough. If you look at American populations by states the median of the ratio of smallest population to any states population is 8 with a standard deviation of 12. The average ratio is 11. Now 17 states (38%) sit above that. In Canada the results for the median, average and stdev are 8, 23 and 28 respectively. 4 provinces (40%) lie above the average. I’m not sure we can say that American population distribution is less pronounced than Canadian.
That said, I’d be fine with a more regional approach though, as bookkeeper rightly points out, the perception of unfairness could sink the proposal.
As for making the Senate an overwhelming obstacle to the House I’d propose that the Senate could only block fiscal bills (i.e. budget) with a 2/3 majority which includes 2 territories and a bare majority of population. This makes Quebec and Ontario critical to any successful opposition to legislation. The same rule could be used, though relaxed to only require a 2/3 Senate seat majority for other legislation. The House could avoid the Senate by passing legislation with 2/3 majority of house seats.
I’m not sure I follow you. Northern Piper isn’t proposing PR as a “sop to provincial interests”, but rather as a way of more accurately representing the views of individual provinces in Ottawa. To take the extreme example this time round, Saskatchewan has 13 Tory and 1 Liberal MPs, but voted 42% Tory, 27% Liberal, 23% NDP. Certainly the makeup of our group of MP’s doesn’t reflect the views of the electorate very accurately. NP’s thesis is that moving to PR from FPTP would, by reflecting voter’s views more accurately, show that the apparent gulf between East and West isn’t as large as it seems. This has nothing to do with providing for provincial interests, except indirectly by making Parliament work better.
Now, I should say I am not a huge fan of proportional representation either, but I do think there are some interesting and possibly positive possibilities.
Personally I’m a fan of FPTP. I really don’t think we need to change the way we elect our MPs. IMO all PR would do is lead to a more fractured parliament and hinder the governing of our country. It would basically mean we would never have a majority government, and would basically have to rely on coalition governments. This could lead to 2 things. Smaller fringe parties could gain power they don’t deserve because they hold the balance of power, allowing views the majority of Canadians don’t agree with become important in the government. Secondly it could fracture the political landscape of Canada even more. Assuming there would be some sort of bare minimum to get a seat, such as 5% (which if I remember my European Politics class correctly is how Germany does it), many little parties could spring up and consider themselves useful and successful by getting 1 or 2 seats, which they wouldn’t be IMO. Not everyone needs to be heard, there is a lot of wacko’s out there (neo-nazis, cannibals, etc.).
I think PR would just mean we would be going to the polls every 1 or 2 years as government after government fell because of the inability to effectively form a coalition (take Italy as an example of this, another country with fairly large regionla differences economically between the S and the N, much like our have/have-not provinces, and IIRC Italys governments last about 1-2 years on avg).
However we do need to do something about regional alienation. From the letters to the editor in the Toronto Star, the west is yet again angry at us Ontarions, even though I don’t see why (don’t we have the same right to vote for who we want that they do? Is it our fault that 1/3 or so of the seats are in ONT? Should we vote for a party we obviuosly don’t like and don’t agree with just to keep Albertans happy?). I don’t dislike westerners, nor Quebecers (Newfies are another story! ), but I have to vote for the party I agree with most, don’t I? Maybe the answer is to make our Senate a real insitution rather then what it is now. I believe it was Grey who suggested some kind of 2/3 plus 50% of pop in senate to veto bills. I beleieve that is what we do for constitutional amendments, and it sounds good to me.
For the record I voted Liberal, never considered voting Alliance, might have voted for Joe Clarks party though.