Now moving on to what I really want to discuss (which I think might be new thread worthy so it doesn't get lost in here).
Octothorp touched on it briefly, so I'll let you re-read that first:
Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Yeah, I found it an interesting point. Really, our system favours having more parties, not less. For example, an Albertan party that will form a coalition with other Conservative parties when appropriate, but which will also have the autonomy to break with such a coalition, should it turn unfavourable. Perhaps we, as voters and participators in democracy, would be better served by 10 regional parties. There would be the potential, for example, for an Albertan and Quebec party to join together for the purposes of passing legislation regarding provincial rights, for example, and then for the Albertan party to join with Saskatchewan and Newfoundland for the purposes of an energy policy.
|
I take it by the setence I've bolded, you've meant to say something along the lines of what you've said in the sentence I've underlined. And I completely agree with that. The thing is, the
voting system (which is a
single-winner voting system and a
plurality voting system i.e. first past the post) we have in place promotes the exact opposite of that i.e. the exact opposite of what you've literally said in the bold sentance. This is
Duverger's law, that a voting system like favours a two-party system (which is almost entirely the case in the US which is a voting system like ours in this context - not to be confused with division of powers vs. legislative supremacy). So in a way, the very existence of the "third parties" in Canada is somewhat of a paradox. Rationally, they shouldn't be here. We'd have two parties, and whichever one is more popular would have a majority. Which means we certainly wouldn't be having this kind of debate today.
To me, the solution to that paradox (or the answer to the question, why do we have third parties in Canada?) is the failure of idealistic left-wing voters to vote strategically. Voting NDP, in the vast majority of cases, takes away votes from the Liberals and ultimately helps the Conservatives win. Voting Green does the same only it's even more conterproductive to the goals of the voter, as at least the NDP can put members of parliament in place. I believe that the real root cause of this crisis is that Canada's voting system and Canada's voting patterns are mismatched, due to the irrationality of this voting segment.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, have provided ample evidence of the forces behind Duverger's law at work. There is no doubt in my mind that having two conservative parties was inherently better for democracy, as it allowed right-leaning voters to provide more refined input into the formation of parliament. They could distinguish between socially progressive fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. You can relate this to building the parliament with more information, if you will.
Things is, the conservatives realised that because they were splitting votes, the number of seats they were winning as two parties was less than the number of seats they would win was greater if they merged. And so, being more Machiavellian (sorry, couldn't resist and I don't really want to say pragmatic when they are also very dogmatic) than the left, that was what they did. And it's worked... they have the biggest chunk of the house. But that's also why I keep saying that "largest chunk" isn't really significant if they don't have a majority. It is not undemocratic for a bunch of small parties to gang up on a big one. (It
is undemocratic to form a government by blatantly disregarding the content of your own party's platform.)
Personally, I'd like to see a system in which small parties and coalitions can prosper. Where perhaps today there'd be a PC party which the Liberals could ally with, rather a united Conservative party that forces them to go to the Bloq and NDP to form a government.
One way to achieve that is
proportion representation, a.k.a. rep. by pop. But the downside to that system is that it doesn't allow for good regional representation (though it might with the formation of regional parties - I haven't completely thought it through where that would lead). Moving forward on that basis though, and rejecting proportional representation as being unsuitable for Canada because of our regional diversity, there are still other systems that would work well.
Instant running-off voting would ensure that all MPs are elected with a majority. The way it works is that instead of one vote, you rank all (or some) candidates. If no candidate has a majority, you eliminate the last place candidate and the people who voted for that candidate are now voting for their second choice. This continues until someone achieves a majority. This allows distinct but similar parties to compete against each other without having to worry about vote splitting. One criticism is that candidates who are liked by many people as a third or fourth choice can be eliminated in the second round an lose, but there are modern algorithms (which would have to be computer counted) that can deal with that problem.
Even better IMO, to produce results that more closely reflect the popular vote whilst maintaining regional representation is the
single transferable vote system. This is similar to automatic run-off, except that you have more than one seat for each (presumably larger) consituency. Each party has multiple candidates running for that riding. When a candidate has enough votes to be elected the extras get distributed proportionately amongst the next choices of those who voted for him. If no candidate reaches the threshold, the last place candidate is eliminated and those votes get distributed proportionately amongst the next choices of those who voted for him.
Ultimately, that's the system I'd like to see in Canada, but it's probably a pipe dream.
What I actually see happening is GG prorogues parliament until the budget, budget gets defeated and the coalition is allowed to stand. I don't think we can go to an election when there is an alternative coalition waiting in the wings. Once again, the fact that that coalition does not include the largest party does not make it undemocratic in any way, shape or form. And again, that doesn't mean I support it, because I think ethically they should go back to the electorate for a mandate having deviated so far from their election platforms.
PS the Wikipedia articles I've linked to are all fantastic reads.