The latest Canadian election is over and I was listening to the Front Burner podcast autopsy. The CBC's Aaron Wherry made an interesting comment that really resonated with me. What he did was ask whether it is now almost impossible for Canadian political parties to form majority governments. It strikes me that this might be the key lesson to draw from what happened yesterday.
The legacy media traditionally went to great lengths to hide the fact that what they call a "majority government" was almost always the result of a minority of the popular vote going to a party plus a great deal of vote-splitting resulting in "wasted votes". That's why they traditionally didn't post the popular vote and tended to exclude what they called the "minor parties" from coverage. The result was a majority of citizens having their wishes ignored by Parliament.
This effect was magnified by the tendency of politicians to pursue a sort of "brinkmanship" that involved daring the average voter to support another party more in tune with their viewpoint because this would result in a party that they have nothing in common with winning. The best example of this is Liberals telling voters "if you vote for the NDP or Greens you're just going to ensure that the Conservatives win". Perhaps the lesson we need to learn from this election is that dog doesn't hunt anymore. And that's a very big deal.
&&&&
The fact of the matter is that Canadians tend to be a lot more left-of-centre than our governments would suggest they are. Add up the MPs elected yesterday and you see the following:
- Liberals: 32.3% or 158 seats
- Conservatives: 34.0% or 119 seats
- Bloc Québécois: 07.8% or 34 seats
- New Democrats: 17.7% or 25 seats
- Greens: 2.3% or 2 seats
- People's Party: 5% and zero seats
If you add up the left-of-centre parties (Liberals, Bloc, NDP, and, Greens) you get 60% of the total popular vote. Add together the seats, and you 219 or 65% of a 338 seat Parliament. That's 60 and 65% that campaigned on dealing with the Climate Emergency, affordable day care, etc, and only 38% that want to continue the fossil fuel fiesta and keep women in the kitchen.
Looking at the above numbers, it's hard to understand exactly how we ever got Stephen Harper as Prime Minister and why anyone could believe that Erin O'Toole had a hope. But if you look at elections where Harper did end up winning, he never got more than 39.6% of the vote. And to form minority governments, the lowest he received was 36.3%.
If you look at the above and think about it, it's easy to realize that what people routinely call a "majority government" is actually "vote wasting ensuring that people who aren't supporters of conventional wisdom don't get any say about how the country is run".
I came across a political cartoon during this election that showed Erin O'Toole and Maxime Bernier yanking on each arm of a obviously disturbed person with a tinfoil hat. All three of them were standing on a pillar of earth that was crumbling away beneath their feet. It summed up nicely the dilemma that the right-wing parties faced in this last election.
 |
| Cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon in the Sept 15/2021 edition of Saltwire. Thanks for the info, Hilary. |
The only way they could win the election would be if they managed to hold onto every single vote by anyone who might possibly vote for them. That was why they refused to say "No!" to a single crazy person in the country. For example, O'Toole dodged and deflected about whether or not he would outlaw assault rifles---even though the majority of Canadians want the Liberal ban continued. It's also why he danced around the idea of vaccine passports and mandates, while refusing to support them. And it's why he has steadily churned out contradictory and confusing policy about carbon pricing. It's because he couldn't afford to appeal to the majority (most of whom would never vote for him) if it meant that he alienated even the tiniest fraction of "his" minority (ie: everyone who might possibly vote Conservative in its present incarnation).
If you ever wonder why, think about the numbers I posted above. Something like 60% of Canadians will probably never vote Conservative the way it is presently constituted. That means they have to to get every single one of the other votes in order to get that between 36.3 and 39.6% that Stephen Harper used to control Parliament. The upshot is that current Conservative leaders simply cannot write off the tinfoil hat crowd and still become Prime Minister. Looking at the numbers that O'Toole got (34%) and the People's Party of Canada received (5%), you can see that they add up to 39%---the sweet spot that allowed Steven Harper to become Prime Minister.
&&&&
If you like the "Guelph-Back-Grounder" and you can afford it, why not subscribe or put something in the tip jar? (Thanks Peter for being so awesome!) It's easy to do using Patreon or Pay Pal.
&&&&
It's interesting sometimes to compare the US and Canada. When we do, however, it's important to make distinctions between where the two countries are similar, and where they are different. We share many elements of culture, but we are very different in the mechanisms we use to govern ourselves. IMHO, we are similar in having a significant "tinfoil hat crowd" but different in the way our political system deals with them.
The biggest difference is that the US political establishment moves heaven-and-earth to prevent the rise of more than two political parties. I won't go into the details, but it's a lot harder for a third party to get onto the ballot, get onto the stages of political debates, and, build a war chest in America. This has profound impact on the strategies the political parties follow to deal with demographic shifts.
In Canada new points of view tend to manifest themselves in the form of new political parties. Are the mainstream parties too cosy with big business? Form the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (the CCF)---which became the NDP. Are the other parties not treating environmental issues with the seriousness they deserve? Form the Green Party. Are the other national parties not being strenuous enough in defending the rights of Quebecers? Form the Bloc Québécois. Are the Conservatives being forced into talking about the Climate Emergency (even if they don't really want to do anything about it) and listening to doctor's advice about COVID-19 (even if they will only do so when the body count gets to the point where it cannot be ignored)? Enter the People's Party of Canada.
In the USA---because it's so much more difficult to form an even moderately successful third party---people who don't like the status quo have a tendency to form a faction within one of the existing parties. That's how the Republicans ended up with the Tea Party and Trumpers; and; how the Democrats got the Blue Dogs and Bernie Bros.
In both Canada and the US, the idea of forming these "ginger parties" or US "caucuses" has had the effect of changing the policies of the more traditional parties. I have no doubt at all that both the Liberals and the NDP have felt the need to deepen their support for environmental policies for fear of the Greens stealing enough votes to lose them seats. And as I said above, the People's Party of Canada probably forced Erin O'Toole to dance around the whole vaccine mandate/passport issue in a way that made him especially vulnerable when Jason Kenney finally had to admit his pandemic mistakes.
This influence is significant, but it's nothing like the effect that Donald Trump has had on the American Republican party. How come? I would suggest that it's because of the other significant difference between the American and Canadian electoral systems.
Canada has an independent body that sets up the boundaries of electoral districts. In contrast, the USA lets each state decide them based on their own ideas. This means that in many of them, whatever party is in power after the last election gets to define the boundaries. The result is Gerrymandering, which allows politicians to choose who gets to vote for or against them. This means that there are a great many seats in the US congress where one party (usually Republican) almost always wins.
Moreover, while Canada still requires that the people who choose a nominee actually has to be an actual member of the party, the US has a system where non-members get to choose the nominee in "primary elections". Since a lot fewer people vote in primaries than do full elections, a well-motivated minority (ie: Donald Trump supporters) can often decide who does or doesn't get the nomination---even in places where one party almost has a "lock" on the seat.
One more thing that makes this system possible in the US is the fact that they have pretty much given up on trying to control the amount of private money that gets put into elections. In Canada we have very strong election financing laws that put real limits on how much individuals, unions, or, businesses can donate to politicians. In addition, we have regulations that allow parties to raise significant amounts of money by having non-wealthy individuals donate small amounts of money which are largely reimbursed by the government through their taxes. Moreover, we also have very strong rules that limit "third parties" from donating to political causes. Finally, we also have very strong rules about charities being allowed to meddle in politics. The Canadian rules tend to suck the "oxygen" out of the "jiggery-pokery" that Americans take for granted.
&&&&
No doubt about it, both Canada and the US need significant electoral reform. Canada needs to inject some amount of proportionality into the way it counts votes. And the US needs to deal with Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and, the influence of big money on elections. I believe both countries need to change the way parties choose their leaders and candidates---to ensure that the people voting actually are people committed to the long-term good of the party instead of just being a flash-mob conjured up by social media.
Having said that, I do not believe that it is possible to create an electoral system that totally removes the human element. Politicians and voters can adapt to any system---to either force it to respond to the needs of the nations, or, to fight tooth and nail against them.
Trudeau suggested two elections ago that he wanted to reform the system, but ended up only putting the option of ranked ballot voting on the table. The other parties freaked because they thought that this would mean that the Liberals would never lose another election. (Presumably, whomever inhabited the mushy middle of Canadian politics would be the second choice of voters to both the right and left.) I think this was short-term thinking.
Changing the system will change the calculus that parties use to craft their platforms. Right now the Conservatives believe that they can only win if they go hard-right and get every last tinfoil-hat wearing, pick-up truck driving, refugee claimant hating, voter out to the polls so they can win the vote-split like Steven Harper. If this option was permanently removed through even a mildly proportional system like ranked-ballot voting, they would be forced to stop courting the fringe and come up with policies that appeal to more voters.
Similarly, without the threat of the big-bad Conservatives to scare progressive voters, the Liberals might find their support melting away like chocolate MPs on a hot summer day. They might find that if they constantly over-promise and under-deliver they would end up becoming the second and even third choices of so many voters that they would have to change the way they do business.
And if it turns out that both the Conservatives and Liberals become more responsive to a wide variety of points of view and the need for "ginger parties" declines, perhaps there would be fewer parties arguing for people's votes. Perhaps they could still exist on the fringes, but only as a warning for the mainstream that they cannot ignore significant issues without them eventually paying a price.
Would any of these be a bad thing?
I'm not holding my breath, however. Entrenched politicians are like everyone else---they absolutely loathe change. This is especially so when it involves the way they've organized their entire careers. As a result, I think voters are going to have to accept the work-around that they are currently using. That is, they have decided to call the Liberal bluff and force them to govern in minority Parliaments where they are forced to negotiate in at least a fake version of good faith with the other progressive parties. (As Francois de La Rochefoucauld said "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue".)
I'm not too upset about the result of our last election. After all, an enormous amount of good legislation came out of the Lester Pearson minority governments that ran from 1963 to 1968. These included:
- universal healthcare
- the Canadian pension plan
- Canada student loans
- the maple leaf flag
- federal minimum wage
- the 40 hour work week
- the minimum two week vacation
- signed the auto-pact
- refused to join the Vietnam war
- started the Royal Commission on the Status of Women
- and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism
- instituted the first non-racial immigration system
Let's hope that Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh can work as well together as Lester Pearson and Tommy Douglas did. Stranger things have been known to happen---.
&&&&
No comments:
Post a Comment