In the interests of Anglosphere outreach (with apologies to our friends in Quebec), here is a thread for discussion of Tuesday’s Canadian election. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has headed a minority government in Canada since the defeat of Paul Martin’s Liberal government at the January 2006 election, and has called an early election in the hope of securing a majority. However, recent polling suggests his party’s vote has softened from the high to the low thirties, slightly lower than where it was at the 2006 election. The Conservatives currently have 127 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons (lower house) against 95 for the opposition Liberal Party, led by Stéphane Dion. On the cross-benches are Bloc Québécois (48 seats), the New Democratic Party (30 seats), the Green Party (one seat) and three independents. Canada has a single-member electoral system, but lacks the even geographical spread of party support that enshrines the two-party system in Australia. In particular, the separatist Bloc Québécois usually polls over 40 per cent of the vote in its home province, and holds a majority of its 75 seats. Canada also has a Senate, but it is unelected and has only residual powers.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Canadian election minus four days
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
120 Comments
tanks william
I predict a close win to Dion
the green vote will increase dramatically
Harper will win but fall short of majority government. His failure to make inroads in Quebec will be a significant problem.
Strange how quick things change. A few weeks ago it was predicted he’d get a new majority.
No chance of Liberal/NDP Coalition?
Harper will win a majority Government, if the Liberal Opposition Leader cannot understand a simple question in English they’re in for a big thumping….Harper in the box seat.
NDP are as radical as the Greens and worse i doubt that Oz.
There’s a chance… just a small one. The Liberals and Conservatives at this stage are polling worse than they were in 2006 with votes flipping to the Green Party and (to a lesser extent) the NDP.
With a first-past-the-post system the rise in the Green vote could actually cost the Liberals more seats than at the last election (if it causes the Liberal vote to fall below the Conservative vote).
If there was a preferential system in Canada I’d expect the Liberal Party would be very hard to defeat.
Glen, the not being able to understand a question in English would only matter in seats the Conservatives already hold, not in the important, more progressive provinces.
Itep you dont understand…Canada has 1st past the post voting the Greens will lose their seat (held only because a Liberal MP got dumped so he quit the party) and will not win one either…the biggest winners will be the Tories and the NDP.
Actually there are a lot of people in Ontario who would not like a Liberal Leader being so poor at English and there are a lot of seats up for grabs in that province.
I think you didn’t understand what I was saying Glen. The Green Party will probably retain the one seat they held.
However the rise in the Green vote may lead to the Liberals losing seats, either to the NDP or, more likely, to the Conservatives. It shows why fpp is a shonky system.
I beg to differ on the impact of ‘being poor at English’ but that’s because I choose to refuse to believe intelligent human beings would care about something so trivial.
Those canadians voting for the greens must be completely stupid, for a first past the post system. From what i have gathered part of the reason Dion is so unpoular is his comitment to environmental reforms. Splitting the left vote between two parties is bad enough but three. Whats worse is they have the precedent of Ralph Nader right next door. How voting for him helped the envirnoment and not do the complete opposite i will never know. because the result was to punish those parties who did support their policies those parties in turn will move drastically away from those policies.What a bunch of complete morons.
Don’t blame the parties… blame the system. The Green Party obviously doesn’t think the Liberals are adequate in some areas so have as much right as any other to stand for election. It’s the fpp system that punishes voters if they choose to vote for an independent/minor party candidate.
i see and losing elections changes this how?
Particularly with something with a short time frame such as global warming it seems rather petty to not be a team player. Drop out on condition that they support changing the voting system. We live in the world as it is not how we want it to be. I doubt the conseratives who are benifting greatly from this system have incentive to change the tallying system.
It’s not the Green Party that doesn’t think the other parties aren’t adequate that matters, it’s the Canadians who vote for the Green party that think that.
Scotty J seems to be arguing that a FPP system should simply be a two-party system.
He doubts the conservatives have an incentive to change the system, but his response is that a vote against the major parties (The most conservative and those with the most to lose) is a wasted vote.
It’s very roundabout logic. “I won’t vote for them because they aren’t going to win anyway”. Indeed.
That is not what i am saying at all oz.
i am saying that there is a time and a place for everything. For starters the greens are not the third or even fourth party are they now. What strikes me is how low the conservatives vote actaully is as non of the parties even the Bloc Quebecans are all that right wing. They should at least have some form of agreement or co ordination to prevent some of the most obvious problomatic seats which does occur in some FPP elections in other countries. Personally i think they need to drastically change their system to a prefferntial model. Im just saying it really sucks how it is possible for someone to win with so few votes.
First past the post is one of the worst systems. In PNG sometimes candidates get elected with less than 10% of the vote. Preferences don’t create a 2 party system – with several parties they allow the people to get a better choice. Eg Con P 40% Lib 20%, NDP 25%, Green 15%. FPP Con P wins. Preferences – NDP probably wins.
In Canada the Liberals, NDP and Greens should cut a deal where for 1 election only they don’t run against each other, form a coalition government and introduce preferential voting or Alternative Vote or Instant Runoff Voting (Whichever description is preferred). Even better MMP for the Canadian House of Commons.
The following election they can get back to the real deal
Yeah but Wakefield, it’s definitely preferable to FPP, whilst not being perfect, since the voter gets more of a say.
The first past the post voting system is the best option for voting and you all know it…
It relies on the basis that every person has 1 vote and 1 vote only instead of giving people like Green voters 2 votes as is the case in Australia, which is unfair!
The Greens wont hold the seat they hold, it’s a Liberal marginal seat (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) and the Tories only need 1,000 votes off the Liberals to win it…all the Green Party could muster was 4,000 votes LOL they arent going to win and that MP has now gifted the seat to the Tories, thanks alot mate!
You can see my beautifil riding maps here (Canadian electorates are called ridings):
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/c/canada/canadamaps2006index.shtml
I don’t know if there’s been a redistribution since 2006.
How amazing that Glen supports FPP when discussing Canada. What happened in Canada in 1993, Glen? The old Progressive Conservative party split in two, and because the two parts couldn’t exchange preferences as they could under our system, they lost 167 seats, saving only 2. The Liberals won a huge majority with 41% of the vote. Is that what you’d like to see here?
Adam
the old war cry from last years fed election about doing a canada- ahh the memories
anyhoo I wonder if you are aware of this
“It is a dilemna many Canadians face in our First-Past-The-Post electoral system. There is however a third possibility known as pair voting. This arrangement is when you agree to vote for a party in your riding that you would not ordinarily vote for in exchange for someone in another riding voting for the party of your choice”
http://www.votepair.ca
BTW
a lot of greens have mobilised the blogocracy- as my friend said the spirit of kim campbell lives LOL
This was tried in the UK. There were two adjoining Tory marginals in Dorset. A website was set up urging Lib Dems to vote Labour in one seat and Labour people to vote Lib Dem in the other, thus maximising the anti-Tory vote. From memory, the Tories lost both seats.
actually Adam i forgot to add that the NDP has allocated 8% of its ridings to what it calls “strategic voting” the other 92% it recommends voting NDP
am awaiting details re the other parties
http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2008/strategic-voting-guide/ndp/
The problem in the UK was that Labour and the Libs Dems don’t like each other one bit, and Labour threatened to expel anyone who advocated a tactical vote for the Lib Dems. So it never took off nationwide.
First past the post voting systems are just appaling. The distorting effect is even worse in the current Canadian situation with such wide regional variation leaving a range of parties quarantined from each other in different provinces and regions (exacerbated by the Quebec factor).
Is it possible if no party gets a majority of seats that a smaller party (perhaps the NDP?) might be willing to offer support for one of the larger parties in forming government only on the condition that they would bring in some decent electoral reform?
Andrew
besides the other links I have posted ,this one seems to cover issues in the widest possible manner
http://www.rabble.ca/
It’s a strange fact, Andrew, that people in many different countries all think their electoral system , whatever it may be, is the best. I happen to think ours is the best, but when I explain its intricacies to British friends, they think I am mad. “What, you have to number all the candidates in order of preference? What if I don’t HAVE a preference between the LaRouchites and the National Front?” Then your vote doesn’t count. “You’re barmy!”
You didn’t tell them that two states have sensibly removed that restriction?
I think we were discussing national elections, but that’s not the point. The point is that people grow up with their country’s electoral system, whatever it is, and find it natural and obviously sensible, compared to the bizarre things that foreigners do.
I take your point Adam – up to a point, anyway. But I don’t think Australia’s electoral system is the best. I prefer PR systems, although some are better than others. Either way, I think first past the post voting systems are generally the worst – although at least they don’t have first past the post voting combined with multi-member electorates I suppose.
I gather there has been a fair bit of effort in Canada over recent at trying to get some electoral reform – at provincial as well as federal level – without having quite got there yet. What I was wondering was whether it had been much of an issue in this election and could possibly be used as a bargaining chip in deciding who forms governement if no one party has a majority.
I remember reading about an inquiry some time ago that recommended an MMP system?
Financial crisis having a pro or anti incumbent effect?
Anti, by the sounds. The Conservatives seem to have dropped as much as 5 per cent since a week ago.
Even though Canadian banks were ranked #1…
Canadian political parties appear to be fairly averse about entering into coalitions, and minority govt’s seem to be the norm, when no parliamentary majority exists. Does anyone know why this is?
Personally, I believe it’s a pretty bad thing to go into a coalition as a minority partner, since if things are going well, big brother gets the credit, whilst if things go badly, the electorate normally deals out a bashing to all the parties of the coalition. This is of course a generalisation, but I think that it’s a real challenge for a minority coalition partner to remain relevant.
As regards electoral reform in Canada, I don’t know a great deal about that. There’s a lot that comes out in the UK (from the Lib Dems) on electoral reform for instance, but I don’t hear Canadian parties saying much about it. Of course, I’m open to being corrected on this.
Gusface @22. I don’t believe the NDP is recommending that its voters vote in this way. It is that particular election website, which is instructing voters where strategic voting might be applied (to gain a desirable outcome for particular voters in their ridings), and where it shouldn’t be applied (ie. vote for party x to stop party y winning, in ridings where a vote for your own party is certainly a wasted vote).
This link here http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2008/strategic-voting-guide/ is a better link as it relates to strategic voting options for all the parties (not just NDP).
It’s curious that the financial crisis seems to be working in favour of the incumbents in NZ (on the basis of one Morgan poll) and (I think so far) Australia, but against the incumbents in the US and Canada. That would suggest that conservatives are being blamed, not incumbents.
I agree that FPTP is the worst of the commonly available options. PR with no threshold is the next worst (as in Israel). MMP or PR with a 5% threshold is better. But I still think our system – preferential single-member in the lower house, PR with a high threshold in the upper house – is the best.
I’ve posted on this at my new blog: tallyroom.wordpress.com
My prediction is a 90% chance of another Tory minority, with 10% chance of a Liberal minority. Since the debate and the economic crisis the gap between the Liberals and NDP is growing in the polls and the Liberals are rising and the Tories falling, thus closing the gap between them.
Tories look set to win another minority government, although the Liberals may be hampered by Green and NDP votes (particularly in British Columbia).
I’ll be interested to see whether there is a Tory resurgence in QUebec and how that effects the seat allocations there (3 party contests between Bloc Quebecois, Tories and Liberals will result in chaos). There’s also the additional problem in Quebec of another significant Quebec-only party: the ADQ, which did surprisingly well in the last provincial elections in Quebec.
There was a period where it looked like the Tories would challenge the BQ, but the latest polls put the BQ back above 40% in Quebec.
Also, on electoral reform, there was a referendum to introduce STV (Hare-Clark) in BC, and there has been discussion about MMP in Ontario. It’s partly because swings produce much more dramatic landslides in Canadian provinces then we see in Australia.
People should look in particular on Wikipedia at election results in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in Ontario and British Columbia.
If there had been a tactical voting scheme in Britain for the 1992 election then there would have been a change of government at that election to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition which would have changed to STV for the next election. The following things would be different, New Labour would not have come about, taxes would be slightly higher, the railways would not have been sold off and more of them would be electric, the Green Party in Britain would not be irrelevant at a national level and Britain may now have the Euro.
For electoral reform campaigning in Canada
http://www.fairvote.ca/
The leader of the Greens in Canada came out against strategic voting. Of course, ironically, it might be the only chance she has of winning her seat. She chose a riding where the member is a very popular Minister in the Government with a high vote.
I would think BQ would be a “block” to a PR system in Canada because it always benefits from the split between other parties. A PR/MMP system is more sensible that current Aust system because it allows a range of parties to be elected roughly according to their vote. Having a threshold like Germany is unfair because the votes of parties with less than 5% are excluded and other parties just get more seats. Its just another plot against smaller parties. A threshold which allows for below threshold/excluded votes to be transferred based on voters intention would produce a much fairer outcome.
Yes Wakefield, that’s exactly why I favour a 5% threshold. The primary function of a legislature is to provide stable majority government, not to represent every shade of opinion in the community. PR with no threshold gives us Israel (weak government dominated by extremist minorities) or Belgium (no government at all). The solution is to have a PR upper house where minorities get a voice, without (usually) affecting the stability of government. I agree with your last sentence.
Israel has 2% threshold. Point taken, though.
“The primary function of a legislature is to provide stable majority government”.
I don’t think you get to have a monopoly on the function and purpose of the legislature. I believe it’s purpose should be to represent the views of the whole community, not exclude 10, 20, 30%.
I get to have an opinion, and so do you.
So Oz you’d like a system where a candidate/party would only need .67% of the vote to obtain one seat of the 150 in the House of Representatives?
No, I’m not arguing against quota’s, I’m arguing for an MMP system with quota’s vs. the current preferencing system.
Actually there’s one other electoral system (of sorts) which is even worse than first past the post, and that’s to appoint people rather than elect them. Unfortunately Canada has that for its Senate, so its got about as bad a system as possible. A non-elected Senate and first past the post for the lower house.
From my understanding, the government appoints the Senators too, so its not even some sort of semi-independent or slightly less partisan group involved in selecting the appointees, which is slightly less horrendous, although still hard to fit within the description of a democracy.
and Canadian senators are appointed for life
house of lords stylez
What a cushy job. Is it as easy as becoming a a Lord in the UK? Ie give the Queen a bunch of cash and away you go – lawmaker for life.
What a slur on Her Maj. You give the cash to a bagman for the ruling party.
Before we totally rip apart canad’as political structure a few points may enlighten some
who post here
1.Canada is bi-lingual witha large native peoples population
2.the hangover from england of its old electoral system was originally to ensure the ruling class kept the reins of power,today we are seeing a 19th C idea being used in the 21st C.This leads to some interesting bedfellows and at times electoral extremities cf Kim Campbell and the devastation of 1993.
3.The social makeup of canada also creates some very weird ridings.As others have said the quebocais issue also stirs the electoral mix
4.Last but certainly not least is big brother over the border-each fed election has had an element of what is happening over the border confusing the local electoral scene.
Swing Lowe @ no. 39
Action démocratique du Québec is a provincial-only party, it is not standing candidates at this federal election.
By the way, what is it with Elections Canada and their stupid multi-hyphenated electorate names? I can just imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons saying “The honourable member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea-to-Sky Country will resume his seat.” Or “The honourable member for Madawaska—Restigouche has the call.”
Or the Canadian equivalent of Antony Green on CBC’s election night coverage saying “Yes, a very tight contest in Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, a six per cent swing to the Conservatives but certainly nowhere near enough to upset the sitting Bloc Québécois member, Paul Crête will certainly retain this seat.”
It’s just not right. Even the US system of numbering congressional districts is less cumbersome.
Adam in Canberra says: “PR with no threshold gives us Israel (weak government dominated by extremist minorities) or Belgium (no government at all).”
Actually the problem in Belgium is created by huge, irreconcilible differences between the voters of Flanders and Walloon, and is not due to the presence of small parties as such. It would be happening regardless of what electoral system is in place.
That said, PR without a threshold is a poor system, as most notably the NSW Uppoer House shows. But some form of PR with a threshold would be a different matter.
The NSW Upper House is actually rather stable now. There’s only three minor parties in the Upper House, all of which have more than one MP. Effectively you have four blocks: Labor, Coalition, Greens, and CDP/Shooters. Since they got rid of ticket voting it has become much more stable and gotten rid of people with practically no electoral support.
Which makes it slightly depressing now that you’ve reaffirmed the fact that the CDP and Shooters have got electoral support…
It’s a shame the ADQ aren’t contesting the general elections in Quebec.
If they had, there would have been seats with 5 major political parties running (Tories, Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and the ADQ). That said, the prospect of ridings with 4 major parties running in a FFP election seems deliciously volatile!!!
Catatonia @ 56
Canada is just following the UK precedent of constituency names like ‘Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey’, ‘Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East’, ‘Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East’, ‘Dorset Mid and Poole North’, ‘Arundel and South Downs’, and ‘Regent’s Park and Kensington North’, with the minor innovation of hyphenation.
Both in the UK and Canada constuituency names are ridiculously long. They’ve got much longer in the UK over the last 20 years. Inverness used to be just Inverness, now it’s Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. I don’t know why.
But in UK Commons they don’t use constituency names as terms of address they way we do in Australia. In the UK Commons the Speaker calls on “Mr Smith”, not “the Hon Member for Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh.” Members usually refer to each other as “The Hon Gentleman” or “My Hon Friend” rather than by constituency name.
The Commons used to have an elaborate set of naming conventions.
An MP who a lawyer was “The Hon and Learned Gentleman”
An MP who or had been an officer was “The Hon and Gallant Gentleman”
An MP who a clergyman was “The Hon and Reverend Gentleman”
An MP who the son of a peer or an Irish peer was “The Hon and Noble Gentleman”
Sadly these have never taken off here, although Whitlam and Killen used to refer to each other as “The Hon and Learned Member” as a sort of private joke.
Swing Lowe @ 60
Sometimes in Scotland there are four-way contests where Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish Nationalists are all serious contenders, and a candidate can win with about one-third of the vote.
Re the UK
Of course I’d rather have Edmund Blackadder or Francis Urquhart as PM than Gordon Brown
David Miliband for me.
Harpers conservative Party came into being as a merger of the Canadian Alliance(Formerly Reform Party) and the old Progressive Conservative Party. Harper was from the Reform Party that was based Strongly in the Priarie provinces of Canada himself from Alberta. The Priarie Provinces are similiar to Queensland with strong rural and mining activities being the backbone of its economy.
I hope Harpers success in securing a majority in Canada House of commons the first for his new look Conservative Party rubs off on Queenslands new look LNP in their election next year.
As the other JC is supposed to have said: ” There is a tide in the affairs of men when, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.”
I wonder if this is the finest moment for Hon Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath and son of the manse.
Could the wheel of fortune be turning in his favour?
Paul Nash,
Harper isn’t going to win the majority government, primarily because he’s p*ssed off too many Ontarians and Quebecois. He needs to pick up seats in those two provinces to have a realistic chance of winning a majority government.
My pick is that the Tories won’t lose too many seats, but they won’t pick up too many either. The Liberals may lose seats to the NDP or Greens, but ultimately, we’ll prob end up with another Tory minority government.
For evidence of my prediction, I note that Intrade is saying that there will be a 89.5% chance of the next Canadian government being a minority one…
I think we should wait for a few more polls before getting too excited about the situation in the UK.
Maybe we should just refer to him as ‘Brutus’.
It looks like no-one will win the Canadian election:
“Strategic Counsel, in a national poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, had Stephen Harper’s Conservatives at 33 per cent (down three points from their 2006 popular vote) and the Liberals at 28 per cent (down two points). The New Democrats were at 18 per cent, the same as their vote in 2006, and the Greens were at 11 per cent, up six points. The Bloc Québécois were at 10 (42 per cent in Quebec, unchanged from 2006). ‘The leitmotif of this campaign has been failure for the two major parties,’ said Peter Donolo, partner of Strategic Counsel. ‘It’s been the failure of the Conservatives to hold onto the support they had and a failure of the Liberals to hold onto the anti-Harper vote’.”
Early results are in:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/
Libs and NDP polling quite well so far on 33% and 25% respectively. Conservatives on 30%.
May lost her seat, though polled pretty good. Would’ve easily won on preferences. Sigh, FPP.
Well not lost her seat, since she didn’t have it. She didn’t win it, I mean.
Canadians have re-elected Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but it is still unclear whether the party will gain enough seats across the country to form a majority government, CBC News projects.
The Tories’ fortunes were buoyed early in the evening by surprising gains in Atlantic Canada, especially in New Brunswick, despite the party being shut out in Newfoundland and Labrador.
CBC projects Conservative government
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/14/elxn-main.html
CBC keeps pushing down the projected number of seats for the Conservatives.
Numbers are eeriely close to the last election…
Except BQ seems to be bleeding votes to the NDP.
K I take that all back, Conservative gain!
Geez, someone else join in. I feel so lonely.
Okay then, what’s going on? Big picture perspective please. Been out all morning. Where should I go for live radio coverage?
Reporter on CBC says Conservative gains, but about 15 short of a majority due to lack of gains in Quebec. Sound right? Is this carved in stone yet?
william
sounds close to the money
got a rather teary email
seems like it is going to be a dark ole winter in canada this year
They gained about 20 seats and are currently 11 short of a majority.
The early results were heavily biased towards the Liberals because those areas where they poll well closed up early.
Interesting fact – In most of the ridings I’ve randomly had a look at, the Conservatives won outright, in some cases with 55-60% of the vote. Even when all 4 opposition parties were contesting.
Make that 10 short.
Oz
the washup of this election will be interesting as perhaps the demographics havent been fully pulled apart
ie older rural vs progressive riding
I hate to say it but i told you so.
Harps is on his way to 142-5 seats and a majority government in the next election for he will need only around 10 seats.
Dion will get bumped aswell.
Tories still alive and well.
Seems the Liberals have done worse than expected then. Andrew Bolt posted a clip the other day showing Stephane Dion struggling disastrously with his English during a television interview. Could that have been a factor? (The interview I mean, not Bolt’s posting of it).
So much for my beautiful theory…
He had 4 bites at an interview stopping each time because he didnt understand a question saying what would you be doing if you were Prime Minister now about the current economic crisis he didnt understand what now meant lol.
actually harper deserve a bit of respect for holding tight during his campaign.I think that projection of calm definitely helped interms of voters trust.
William – It wasn’t just that one interview. He’s had an image of being someone with a poor grasp of English for some time. However I don’t know what kind of impact that would have had on its own, unless spun into the narrative that Dion wouldn’t be a “decisive leader”.
The only reason he didnt win a majority was Quebec, plain and simple but their vote basically held up there.
Funny the Tories are on their way to win Nunavut in Arctic Canada. Tories also doing well in B.C.
Adam
While it’s bad news for your theory, it’s even worse for the “incumbent” theory. Incumbents everywhere are doing well out of the crash.
Brown, Berlusconi, Clarke, Sarkozy, Harper and Rudd are all travelling as well or better than before. Funnily enough, George W hasn’t felt that effect!
Hmmmm me thinks the Canadian Civil Service has been watching Yes Minister as their seems to be a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs lol!
In terms of vote shares, it looks like up 1 percentage point up for the Tories, down 3 points for the Grits, down 1 for BQ, up 1 for the NDP, and up 2 for the Greens.
Bush is an outcumbent.
They have a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs because they have a much looser federation than we do, following the Trudeau era decentralisation. In many respects the provinces are virtually independent, and the federal government has to negotiate with them accordingly.
Amazing how 1% can give you 20 seats.
joh BP did that
and they werent even alive
That’s the beauty of 1st Past the Post voting Oz!
It has no beauty…
Glen you seem to forget that it was YOUR side of politics that introduced preferential voting, in 1918, so that Nationalist and Country Party candidates could run against each other within splitting the conservative vote and allowing Labor to win seats on a minority vote. Compare the reults of the Swan and Corangamite by-elections to see how this worked:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1917/1917repsby.txt
Well i disagree with that decision Adam I think our side was wrong to do that.
The Tories wouldnt win nearly as many seats without 1 past the post in Canada.
It would also benefit the Liberals in Australia if it were returned.
Wow. So you actually don’t give a crap about how democratic the system is, just as long as it returns your party?
A dictatorship by any other name…
That is a democratic system, it enshrines the idea that citizens have 1 vote not two if you happen to vote for a fringe party.
That’s a very cynical attaitude Glen. Anyway it wouldn’t benefit your side all that much, because everytime there was a three-cornered contest Labor would win it on a minority vote.
It also enshrines the idea that no longer do we have a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority.
Adam at 90: I wouldn’t junk your theory quite yet. My admittedly limited understanding is that the Conservative vote is only up 1 per cent on the last election, and is still down on where the polls were a month or two ago when they were hoping for a majority. My favoured theory as to why the result differs from the polls of a week ago is that Dion’s disastrous television interview crystallised English-speaking voters’ doubts about him and drove them to the Conservatives. I gather the Conservatives had a relatively poor show in Quebec, which seems to support this. The dividend from the Liberals’ decline has mostly been reaped not by the Conservatives but by other parties of the left, and the divided vote has produced a seat outcome that flatters the Conservatives.
Bring on PR in Canada!
The article about the Canadian election in today`s Crikey is very good but I don`t support MMP as the best system but instead STV like that used in state/ territory elections in Tasmania/the ACT.
It’s worth noting that the Liberals, NDP and Greens got 51% of the vote between them. So Canadians voted for a centre-left government but didn’t get one, because of Canada’s electoral system.
To get a notional MMP result, I divided the actual seat totals by two, then distributed 154 seats among the provinces proportionately. The result is:
Con 71 + 59 = 130
Lib 38+ 42 = 80
NDP 19 + 30 = 49
BQ 25 + 15 = 40
Green 0 + 8 = 8
Ind 1
Thus the Libs + NDP + Greens have 137 seats, probably enough to form a minority government depending on what the Bloc decided to do. They are still under-represented because of the bias inherent in FFP voting for the 154 single-member seats. A full national PR result would have been
Con 117
Lib 82
NDP 57
BQ 31
Grn 21
So Libs + NDP + Greens = 160, a majority government. The biggest winners from the distortions of the current system are actually the BQ.
MMP plus preferential voting for the single-member seats would probably have produced much the same result, but it’s not possible to demonstrate that except with seat-by-seat calculations, which I’m not going to do
FFP voting = FPP voting (first past the post)
If the Grits and the NDP were willing to form a coalition government, they could have done so in the last Parliament. Grits 103 plus NDP 29 equals 132 as against Tories 124, enough unless the BQ (51) deliberately voted with the Tories to put them out. So the problem (for anybody who thinks it is a problem) comes not only from the electoral system, but also from the long-standing unwillingness of Canadian parties to join in coalition governments.
It’d be weird if they did. Minority governments and coalitions between a few parties are more common in countries with some form of PR. The fact that Canada has had minority government’s and different coalition possibilities with the least proportional system imaginable is quite strange. Though due a large part to voting based on regional differences.
The stability of the Canadian parliamentary system has been greatly weakened by the emergence of the BQ, which makes it very hard for any party to win a majority. It’s as if a Victorian Party won all the seats in Victoria and then refused to join or support any government. I don’t see why the Anglo-Canadians want Quebec to stay in Canada at all, they’d be much better off without it.
Adam, you could say that about any country that has secession/autonomy movements. Why the hell does Russia want Chechnya? Why does China want Tibet or Taiwan?
Because both Russia and China are run by aggressively nationalist dictatorships who use issues like Chechnya and Tibet to cement their hold on power. Canada is a highly civilised liberal democracy. If and when Quebec actually gives a clear vote for independence, I’m sure Canada will say “au revoir, bon chance and good riddance.”
England, Northern Ireland?
Indonesia, West Papua?
Pakistan/India, Kashmir?
Of course if there referendums on certain issues, results would be different. But Government’s like power and they like having more power.
Has the Northern Ireland Assembly voted to separate from the United Kingdom?
I’m not particularly sure the Asian experiences can be transcribed onto Western countries. However, I remain doubtful that Quebec could that simply secede from Canada. If the fact that BQ refuses to support stable Government bothered the people of Quebec that much they’d have been gone years ago.
Oz, the UK has the same electoral system as Canada, and they have had minority governments on a number of occasions in the past. Papua New Guinea also has the same system, and they have coalition governments all the time. The electoral system does nothing directly to stop Canada from having coalition governments–for some reason the parties just won’t do it. Whether it’s primarily the Grits who don’t want a coalition with the NDP or the NDP that don’t want a coalition with the Grits or both, I don’t know.
Adam, I don’t know whether Anglo-Canadians (apart from politicians) do want Quebec to stay in Canada. I don’t know whether they’ve ever been asked. It’s only the Quebecers who have actually voted in referenda, and have always so far voted against secession (I say ‘always’, I think there have only actually been two referenda, but ‘No’ won both of them).