Terrific analysis, everyone, but you’ve left out my favourite event of recent Canadian politics.
When the Reform Party re-named itself in the hopes of appealing to Progressive Conservative voters, the name they first chose for themselves was the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party. In Canada, we refer to the Progressive Conservatives as the PC, the New Democratic Party as the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois as the BQ, etc. So what does that make the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party?
CCRAP
I howled with laughter when I saw this unfold. Only in Canada, eh?
RickJay, Hansel, JTI, thanks again for your analyses. It’s one thing to understand theoretically how a parliamentary system works, another to try to get your Yank mind around what it’s like to live under day to day
When I was there ("Cape Breton/ Bras d’Or riding, according to [url=“http://www.canoe.ca”]here, I had some talks with my mother’s cousin, who recently retired from a social workers position in Halifax. She was grousing about how even in the rest of Nova Scotia Cape Breton didn’t get the resources or respect it needed sometimes. So, where would my mom’s cousin have to direct her grousing to get a new jobs centre in Mabou? If it’s not her NDP MP back in Ottawa, is it the provincial MP in Halifax? And where would the province get the money in the first place–is that from Ottawa? Who allots that–how could little NS compete with Ontario, or Quebec?
I’m not so much interested in pork barrel politics, but in how things are done. From what you’re all saying, power seems to be a lot more centralized in the Feds in the country, and I’m sure I’m missing something. Thanks!
The Natural Law party is running again. Saw a very compelling party platform before the latest edition of the Candian history series. Who wouldn’t want the endless positive power of Vedic meditation aiding world peace?
With the possible exception of Switzerland, no country in the world has power as decentralized as it is in Canada. Not only does this help explain the rise in regional parties, and why the provincial tax rates are nearly as high as the federal ones. It also explains why grandma out in Cape Breton should direct her grousing to the provincial government. Lots of money is already transferred from rich Ontario to poor Nova Scotia to make up for the difference in tax base. Most people in Hogtown (i.e. Toronto) think that’s enough. I just moved out east and assure you they don’t like Torontois too much here.
I was thinking about this question again yesterday at work (slow day), and something else occurred to me about the differences between the party systems in Canada and the U.S. Don’t know if it’s relevant to the OP, but thought I would just toss it out.
It seems to me from following the U.S. news that the two main parties are much more institutionalized than our parties are. The U.S. parties are recognised at law, their primaries are governed by state law, and the primaries appear to be run by the states, like government elections. The impression I’m left with is that although the parties are not themselves part of government, they are recognized as quasi-public institutions. (If I’m wrong on this, I’m sure you folk will gently correct me.)
The Canadian parties are considered private associations or non-profit corporations. Their internal affairs, including the nomination of candidates, are governed by their own party constitutions, and are not subject to provincial or federal electoral law. There are no primaries in the U.S. sense, where the election is closely regulated by the state or federal elections authorities. The local candidate is nominated at a meeting of the party’s constituency association, and party members who want to vote have to show up. There’s more variation among the parties in the selection of leaders, but even those parties who are moving towards leadership selection by all the party members conduct the vote themselves, and it’s only open to party members.
Nor do we have this idea of registering as a party member when you register to vote, which I’ve noticed in some of the states. Your party membership, if any, is no business of the provincial or federal electoral officials.
I don’t know how significant these differences are to the OP, but it seems to me that the legal recognition of the two main parties may confer a sort of legitimacy and institutional advantage on them, that is difficult for third parties to break past. When the parties themselves have some control over the electoral process, won’t they naturally try to exclude others?
I’ve been crusading on this MB for people to gain greater understanding of how the U.S. electoral system prevents the success of third parties. I think the similarities and differences b/t the U.S. and Canadian systems would be an excellent opportunity to pontificate on this point. Herewith begins the pontification.
Both the U.S. and Canada use “first past the post” in elections - each election is based on a geographic area, and the winner of a plurality (not a majority) wins the election. This supports a two-party system - a third (or fourth) party that consistently gets 10% of the vote in the geographic area will consistently win 0% of the elections. Without reward for their vote, the less-dedicated third party voters will migrate away to support a party that has a chance of winning. In addition, without the benefits of incumbency, a third party candidate cannot effectively lend support to other candidates.
OK, but why does Canada have what, as RickJay wonderfully put it, a 2.5-party system, while the U.S. has only 2 parties?
Canada’s parliamentary system - In a parliamentary system, while a third party can almost never rule, it can hold the balance of power. If the NDP gets 10% of the seats in Parliament, and both the CA and LP get 45%, the NDP can choose (after appropriate concessions, of course), which of the two major parties will rule. So the possibility of holding the balance gives reason for third party voters to keep supporting their party.
However, the first past the post system lowers this possibility as well. If you look at parliament-ruled countries world-wide, coalition governments (i.e. where the third party gets a piece of the ruling pie), generally only occur in countries with at least some proportional representation (Germany’s and Italy’s hybrid systems are too complex to discuss here - let’s just call them PR countries for the moment.) For example, in Britain, the LibDems consistently get a considerably greater share of the popular vote than they get of seats in Parliament. This is because Britain is also first past the post, and a large proportion of the LibDems’s candidates come in a close third. Hence, the LibDems (or any of their predecessor parties) IIRC, have never been a part of government.
The only way for a third party to beat the first past the post system is geographic concentration. This is what the BQ has done.
So why doesn’t a regional party arise in the U.S.? A “Bloc California” (“BC”) could hold the balance of power in the House of Reps. Three reasons. First, the BC would have almost no impact on the Senate. Second, the BC would have almost no impact on the Presidency. So the most the BC might get is the balance of power in 1/2 of 1/3 of the U.S. government. Not a strong base on which to build a party.
The third reason is a quirk of the U.S. Congress - there really is no party discipline. In other countries, parties have myriad ways of punishing an MP who votes against the party line, up to and including preventing his/her re-election. That doesn’t happen in the U.S., and coalitions to pass legislation are constantly shifting. Thus, even if the BC held the balance of power, it would be (hard but) possible for other members of Congress to work around the BC.
Canada has ten provinces, essentially. Only four of them have a substantial population. California has a big population too, but is one of fifty states. Even though none of the states trusted the feds at Constitution time, they would have a hard go making a independent run.
The parties in Canada are not enshrined in the Constitution. Canada lacks many of the checks and balances found in the US and accordingly the Prime Minister here has a terrifying amount of power. All the more reason to elect Stockwell Day. NOT! I never cease to be amazed by the awesome drollery of Canadian political debates to affect a party’s standing.
RickJay: As a Johhny-come-lately to this thread, let me say WOW!. That’s the most cogent, succinct, and perspicuous ‘explanation’ of the contemporary Canadian political scene I’ve ever seen.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but just to be clear, parties in the U.S. are not enshrined in the Constitution, either.
As for the second part, it’s my understanding that Canada has a much looser federal system than the U.S., and that considerably more power is retained by the provinces than is retained by the U.S. states. I agree with you that Canada lacks the executive/legislative check and balance, but I think it is more than made up for by the federal/provincial balance of power.
Part of my job is to read the 4 provincial newspapers every day, and today I made some notes.
Stockwell Day has said in public:
He will give tax cuts to parents for the tuition they pay to religous & private schools (thereby weakening the public schools)
The earth is 6000 years old
Man once lived among the dinosaurs
Evolution is as proven as creationism (oh MY GOD!!)
The geological stuff is proof of ‘Noah’s Flood’ (OH MY GOD!!!)
He wants to stop the federal payments to the lesser tax earning provinces, forcing every province to pay for its own health care, so smaller provinces & territories will haveto drastically cut the ‘extras’ like oh, I dont know… CANCER CARE!
He feels that it should be up to the parents as to whether the schools want to teach creationism as science.
He wants to outlaw abortion.
He is against registration of firearms.
I havent found his stand on gay rights, but members of his party include lawyers for pro-nazi supporters.
I am afraid. I really am. What if he gets elected?
I did not mean to imply American parties are enshrined in the Constitution; just worded it badly. The balance between federal and provincial levels does not make up for the American system of checks and balances because there is no balance between the judiciary systems and the executive and legislative branches can be very similar indeed.
I admit I’ve never understood how this reflects badly on the party (lots of other stuff you cited reflects badly on them, but not this.)
Canada is a free country. Neo-Nazis, odious scum though they might be, are entitled to legal counsel. Defending a Nazi doesn’t make you a Nazi; hell, Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU have defended the Klan in court.
The rule of law dictates that even Nazis get a fair day in court. There is nothing wrong with serving the court in that capacity.
What if a meteor hits your house tomorrow? It’s just as likely.
As to being afraid, the likelihood that Stockwell Day’s religious opinions would ever enter into public life lie somewhere between slim and none. I don’t see Jean Chretien forcing people to be Catholics. Your religious freedom is protected by the Constitution and the courts, not the benevolence of the Prime Minister.
If Stockwell gets elected, he’ll have to answer to the public and to parliament. I must point out that most of the things you mentioned are not part of the Alliance platform. You’re only extrapolating that he’ll attempt to do these things because he personally believes them (or used to, anyway. Most of this stuff comes from comments he made years and years ago, when he was a minister.
I think the our system makes the American system look damned near perfect. It’s outrageous that the government in power has so much lattitude in when to call an election, when to submit a budget, etc. Incumbents already have too much power in our system.
I’m really torn, because I consider every single candidate in our election extremely flawed. Jean Cretian is a power-hungry opportunist. He’s never met a principle he wasn’t willing to break if he needed a vote. I have no faith in the ultimate direction of government under the Liberals - they jump on whatever bandwagon happens along at any given time. The NDP is abhorrent to me, as are the Greens. That leaves the Alliance, and I get a really uncomfortable vibe from them.
Stockwell Day was a personal hero of mine here in Alberta. He cut the size of government back when the popular wisdom was that it was political suicide. Alberta has become a model for many other provinces and yes, U.S. states. The Republicans AND Democrats paid very close attention to what happened in Alberta when it cut the size of government, and it opened a lot of eyes.
But the alliance party itself scares me. There are too many cultural conservative extremists in that party to suit a Libertarian like me. Unfortunately, there are no Libertarians here to vote for. We need another protest party, like the guys a few years ago who campaigned on a platform of lowering the Rocky Mountains to give us all a little more daylight. I’d vote for them in a second.
Amen.
If the PC’s had chosen a younger more modern leader for the party, they could have done it. This year, there isnt anyone good to vote for, we pick the least ‘bad’.
If only they hadnt put Joe Clark in charge! The premier of NB is a PC, and he is doing a splendid job. He was elected on a platform of promises, that he pledged to keep within 200 days, or he would step down - and he kept them!!!
The PC party could have came back to federal power if only they hadnt chose Clark.
No francophones in the Unites States?! Next thing I know, you’ll be telling me that Spanish isn’t one of the official languages of Puerto Rico and that Hawaiian isn’t one of the official languages of Hawaii!
Would you believe… no united francophones with a political party of their own?
I shouldn’t throw anything into this conversation, mainly because I’m woefully inadequate when it comes to matters of politics, but I would like to hold up for an example of voting practices the advice my father gave me when I was growing up. He told me to vote NDP because they would never get in power, but made an excellent watch dog for the other groups.
Guess I meant that federal courts have precedence over [provincial ones and therefore the judicial balance is skewed if you say the balance between the federation and its provinces makes up for checks. Not a particularly telling point, I agree.
I’m still not following you, Dr. P - the Federal Court doesn’t have any supervisory jurisdiction over the provincial courts. Appeals go from the highest provincial court to the Supreme Court, which is a federal court - is that what you meant?
