I loath the fact that simply pointing out how parliament works and the implications of what is essentially mixing American democracy with English Parliamentary Democracy is now considered being pedantic. Major news outlets asking Canadians living in BC whether they are going to "vote for Trudeau" and commentators speaking about mandates and Prime Ministerial terms and those of us trying to correct and clarify are being shoved away as pedants. This whole country needs a shake.
I like to dream of the Conservatives (119 seats), the Bloc Québécois (33 seats), and the NDP (25 seats) voting non-confidence in the Liberal (159 seats) government's Throne Speech.
And, the Governor General, then, asking Erin O'Toole to form a government.
The Conservatives would then form a government, pass one piece of legislation to implement the Single Transferable Vote proportional representation voting system.
O'Toole would then prorogue government for one year to give Elections Canada time to implement the system. Then, O'Toole would ask the G-G to dissolve Parliament and issue the writs for a new election.
The Conservatives will never go for PR, either. It makes it harder to get a majority so the two big parties both feel that they would lose out...and they would...which would likely be better for all of us.
So, true. However, today's Conservative Party has very little likelihood of ever forming a majority government. Under a PR system, like STV or MMP, it could win a plurality of seats and organize a coalition government.
The same appears to be true for the Liberals. Although they have a better chance of forming a majority government that, too, seems less and less likely.
I've yet to read a journalist take the most-obvious conclusion: that we said "Meh. Thanks. We're fine. We're content. Things are basically OK. We're glad to not be the States, or Britain, with their terrible leadership. We're glad to have one of the lowest pandemic death-rates in the developed world. The new programs announced so far are OK, we guess; we don't know if they're Too Much or Too Little, either, let's just carry on and find out."
Here's my image of the 2021 election: a number of eager people accost a man trying to read in a library, berating him with philosophical questions, and he says "Would you mind leaving me alone?"
That's all I can draw from parliament not changing much, when so much in the world has changed.
I don’t share your sentiment that “things are basically okay”, nor that there is genuine leadership in Canada, much less that it’s superior in some way to either the US or GB. I think that a good many Canadians have become complacent to an alarming degree, even as the road before us darkens and narrows. Inertia is a powerful force.
Perhaps I should have explained that I've been very focused on the pandemic, because nothing else compares to a national challenge that has killed 28,000 Canadians, harmed the economy more than 2008-2010.
And Canada has one-third the casualties-per-million of either the US or UK. I consider it a highly signficant measure of government effectiveness, though credit is certainly a bit more provincial than federal.
As an additional 50,000 Canadians would now lie in cold graves if we had either American or British governance, I figure "things are basically OK", at least by comparison, particularly since France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, all have at least twice our dead-per-capita.
I understand. However, when one digs a bit deeper, I don’t think it serves to be overly complacent in respect to our performance in the pandemic. There are a great many metrics to be considered - I commend the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s well-researched Covid Misery Index to you. We have a low number of deaths directly attributed to Covid, yes. But the almost complete cessation of diagnoses, treatments and surgeries as our medical system ground to a halt in respect to cancer, stroke, etc. is going to result in some pretty grim numbers. To say nothing of livelihoods and businesses wrecked by perpetual lockdowns (I’m in Ontario), and the spiralling cases of all sorts of mental health conditions. We will have to agree to disagree about Canadian leadership on many levels, and that “things are basically okay.” I always appreciate a civilised chat - thanks very much.
Actually, since it is also my personal opinion, I got caught up in 'defending' that attitude, and forgot to point out that my original comment was just that perhaps that's the statistical-average attitude of most of the electorate - as indicated by their lack of interest in changing horses, so it, umm, *could* have not been my opinion that "things are basically OK", and I'd still have made that statement about the populace.
(But, I'm afraid that the pandemic-collateral-damage issue will apply - only more so - to the states that had a worse pandemic. We'll still look good, on the curve, as it were.)
You talk about the "voters" electing our national gov't. Really, it's Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa that elects the government. People who either work for government or love being bribed by a government that borrows to pay for the bribes and foists off paying for the borrowed money on to our children and grandchildren. Disgusting people.
Straight PR is not necessarily democratic, but the description of a system in which such a large number of people are unwilling to vote, whether they believe that to constitute some sort of articulate protest or simply don't care, as "broken" is correct.
If the government that results lacks ability to accomplish important things because of its fractious structure, it reduces power and increases cost. To the extent the system rewards mere popularity, it can reduces both the merit and meaningful accountability of government. To the extent is merely empowers thoughtless mobs and emotional reactionaries, it puts civil and reasonable government at risk. In all these ways, and likely others I am not considering at this time, PR is not *necessarily* democratic, and can, in fact, rob the demos of actual power (i.e., the power to effect beneficial and substantial change).
I do not think that progressives would have been singing a delightful tune of electoral reform if this election would have been PR. The People's Party definitely would have picked up seats, Bernier would be in the House of Commons for sure. So would probably three or four other fringe parties breaking off the Liberals, NDP and CPC. Any simulation that runs PR under the current two party plus one system that we have today is completely false, the entire landscape would change and not for the better for people who want progressive governments.
You are missing my point. Each electoral system has gains and drawbacks. First and foremost, the electoral system ought to align with the legislative system. This is why FPTP exists in the first place, not as a means of holding onto power with 38% of the vote but rather as a means of populating the legislature with bodies to fill seats. In a system where each seat in the legislature represents a defined geographical area, it makes sense that we hold mini-elections in one general election in each of these areas. This is essentially what happens during an election. PR would mean that the national vote would become an actual constituency (it does not exist in any parliamentary system, contrary to how many times it is cited post-election in these very systems) and would subvert the idea of the legislature as a collection of seats tied to individual geographical areas. There are flavours of PR that get use closer to the parliamentary ideal with a more representative system, and these too have gains and drawbacks themselves.
One of the drawbacks of PR in a parliamentary system is that fact that smaller parties and fringe groups would get seats in this legislature despite not having significant support in any part of the country. A muddied situation of national constituencies clashing with local/regional issues. Because in a parliamentary system, the legislature is the place where government is formed and not the ballot box the result would be a more fragmented formation of the executive. This could be a good thing (vis a vis coalitions working together, etc) but could also prove to be terribly divisive and counterproductive. Plug the numbers from the previous election into a PR scenario in Canada and you get an even less stable legislature to form government from than what we have today under FPTP. And not for good reasons either, but because there would be a handful of seats for the PPC, more seats for the NDP (including, no doubt, more radical wings of the party) and more Greens. All of which would pull away from any potential confidence for any potential government.
Agreed. The Knesset, to me, is a perfect example of why PR generally rewards tiny factions with an inordinate amount of clout. Though there are things I am liking less and less about how things are done here. Too many seats by acclamation, for instance.
There are two versions of parliament; how it is *supposed-to* work and how it actually works. Lagassé et al. are really good at explaining the supposed-to parliament but this is markedly different from the actual parliament. Whether the difference has matter or not up until this point in history is irrelevant, I think it matters greatly when we open up the Pandora's box of electoral reform. FPTP the not some system in a vacuum, it exists for a reason, and a very good one in light of our parliamentary system (the supposed-to one). But there is an argument certainly to be made (and this is where I personally see electoral reform being desirable) in acknowledging how our system exists, codifying it in some say (like how the Aussies have done) and have an electoral system that more reflects that reality. If we are going to have national tours and put emphasis on a national campaign, perhaps it is time for a constituency of national voters to elect leaders. If we are going to do away with the idea of geographic ridings and look at the country as a whole than we ought to also be prepared for a whole different partisan landscape come election time, especially with any kind of proportional system.
The long and the short of it; we shouldn't be talking electoral reform without talking about parliamentary reform alongside with changes happening in tandem.
Good analysis! But someone might want to fix that “pendant”.😉
I was planning to comment on that too.
“Pendant” and other (we hope) inadvertent typos (eg “party that wins that most seats”) seriously distract from the author’s points.
I loath the fact that simply pointing out how parliament works and the implications of what is essentially mixing American democracy with English Parliamentary Democracy is now considered being pedantic. Major news outlets asking Canadians living in BC whether they are going to "vote for Trudeau" and commentators speaking about mandates and Prime Ministerial terms and those of us trying to correct and clarify are being shoved away as pedants. This whole country needs a shake.
I like to dream of the Conservatives (119 seats), the Bloc Québécois (33 seats), and the NDP (25 seats) voting non-confidence in the Liberal (159 seats) government's Throne Speech.
And, the Governor General, then, asking Erin O'Toole to form a government.
The Conservatives would then form a government, pass one piece of legislation to implement the Single Transferable Vote proportional representation voting system.
O'Toole would then prorogue government for one year to give Elections Canada time to implement the system. Then, O'Toole would ask the G-G to dissolve Parliament and issue the writs for a new election.
Alas, then I wake up.
The Conservatives will never go for PR, either. It makes it harder to get a majority so the two big parties both feel that they would lose out...and they would...which would likely be better for all of us.
So, true. However, today's Conservative Party has very little likelihood of ever forming a majority government. Under a PR system, like STV or MMP, it could win a plurality of seats and organize a coalition government.
The same appears to be true for the Liberals. Although they have a better chance of forming a majority government that, too, seems less and less likely.
All fixed! Thank you from those of us who *are* obnoxious pedants, which M. Lagassé is definitely not! 😉
Thoughtful and relevant piece. As you say, terminology matters, also spelling, which I tend to be a bit pedantic about.
I've yet to read a journalist take the most-obvious conclusion: that we said "Meh. Thanks. We're fine. We're content. Things are basically OK. We're glad to not be the States, or Britain, with their terrible leadership. We're glad to have one of the lowest pandemic death-rates in the developed world. The new programs announced so far are OK, we guess; we don't know if they're Too Much or Too Little, either, let's just carry on and find out."
Here's my image of the 2021 election: a number of eager people accost a man trying to read in a library, berating him with philosophical questions, and he says "Would you mind leaving me alone?"
That's all I can draw from parliament not changing much, when so much in the world has changed.
I don’t share your sentiment that “things are basically okay”, nor that there is genuine leadership in Canada, much less that it’s superior in some way to either the US or GB. I think that a good many Canadians have become complacent to an alarming degree, even as the road before us darkens and narrows. Inertia is a powerful force.
Perhaps I should have explained that I've been very focused on the pandemic, because nothing else compares to a national challenge that has killed 28,000 Canadians, harmed the economy more than 2008-2010.
And Canada has one-third the casualties-per-million of either the US or UK. I consider it a highly signficant measure of government effectiveness, though credit is certainly a bit more provincial than federal.
As an additional 50,000 Canadians would now lie in cold graves if we had either American or British governance, I figure "things are basically OK", at least by comparison, particularly since France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, all have at least twice our dead-per-capita.
I understand. However, when one digs a bit deeper, I don’t think it serves to be overly complacent in respect to our performance in the pandemic. There are a great many metrics to be considered - I commend the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s well-researched Covid Misery Index to you. We have a low number of deaths directly attributed to Covid, yes. But the almost complete cessation of diagnoses, treatments and surgeries as our medical system ground to a halt in respect to cancer, stroke, etc. is going to result in some pretty grim numbers. To say nothing of livelihoods and businesses wrecked by perpetual lockdowns (I’m in Ontario), and the spiralling cases of all sorts of mental health conditions. We will have to agree to disagree about Canadian leadership on many levels, and that “things are basically okay.” I always appreciate a civilised chat - thanks very much.
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/covid-misery-index/
Actually, since it is also my personal opinion, I got caught up in 'defending' that attitude, and forgot to point out that my original comment was just that perhaps that's the statistical-average attitude of most of the electorate - as indicated by their lack of interest in changing horses, so it, umm, *could* have not been my opinion that "things are basically OK", and I'd still have made that statement about the populace.
(But, I'm afraid that the pandemic-collateral-damage issue will apply - only more so - to the states that had a worse pandemic. We'll still look good, on the curve, as it were.)
You talk about the "voters" electing our national gov't. Really, it's Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa that elects the government. People who either work for government or love being bribed by a government that borrows to pay for the bribes and foists off paying for the borrowed money on to our children and grandchildren. Disgusting people.
"At this point, you’re understandably thinking that I’m an obnoxious pedant." - Yes, yes I am. sorry.
pendant?
Straight PR is not necessarily democratic, but the description of a system in which such a large number of people are unwilling to vote, whether they believe that to constitute some sort of articulate protest or simply don't care, as "broken" is correct.
If the government that results lacks ability to accomplish important things because of its fractious structure, it reduces power and increases cost. To the extent the system rewards mere popularity, it can reduces both the merit and meaningful accountability of government. To the extent is merely empowers thoughtless mobs and emotional reactionaries, it puts civil and reasonable government at risk. In all these ways, and likely others I am not considering at this time, PR is not *necessarily* democratic, and can, in fact, rob the demos of actual power (i.e., the power to effect beneficial and substantial change).
I do not think that progressives would have been singing a delightful tune of electoral reform if this election would have been PR. The People's Party definitely would have picked up seats, Bernier would be in the House of Commons for sure. So would probably three or four other fringe parties breaking off the Liberals, NDP and CPC. Any simulation that runs PR under the current two party plus one system that we have today is completely false, the entire landscape would change and not for the better for people who want progressive governments.
You are missing my point. Each electoral system has gains and drawbacks. First and foremost, the electoral system ought to align with the legislative system. This is why FPTP exists in the first place, not as a means of holding onto power with 38% of the vote but rather as a means of populating the legislature with bodies to fill seats. In a system where each seat in the legislature represents a defined geographical area, it makes sense that we hold mini-elections in one general election in each of these areas. This is essentially what happens during an election. PR would mean that the national vote would become an actual constituency (it does not exist in any parliamentary system, contrary to how many times it is cited post-election in these very systems) and would subvert the idea of the legislature as a collection of seats tied to individual geographical areas. There are flavours of PR that get use closer to the parliamentary ideal with a more representative system, and these too have gains and drawbacks themselves.
One of the drawbacks of PR in a parliamentary system is that fact that smaller parties and fringe groups would get seats in this legislature despite not having significant support in any part of the country. A muddied situation of national constituencies clashing with local/regional issues. Because in a parliamentary system, the legislature is the place where government is formed and not the ballot box the result would be a more fragmented formation of the executive. This could be a good thing (vis a vis coalitions working together, etc) but could also prove to be terribly divisive and counterproductive. Plug the numbers from the previous election into a PR scenario in Canada and you get an even less stable legislature to form government from than what we have today under FPTP. And not for good reasons either, but because there would be a handful of seats for the PPC, more seats for the NDP (including, no doubt, more radical wings of the party) and more Greens. All of which would pull away from any potential confidence for any potential government.
Agreed. The Knesset, to me, is a perfect example of why PR generally rewards tiny factions with an inordinate amount of clout. Though there are things I am liking less and less about how things are done here. Too many seats by acclamation, for instance.
There are two versions of parliament; how it is *supposed-to* work and how it actually works. Lagassé et al. are really good at explaining the supposed-to parliament but this is markedly different from the actual parliament. Whether the difference has matter or not up until this point in history is irrelevant, I think it matters greatly when we open up the Pandora's box of electoral reform. FPTP the not some system in a vacuum, it exists for a reason, and a very good one in light of our parliamentary system (the supposed-to one). But there is an argument certainly to be made (and this is where I personally see electoral reform being desirable) in acknowledging how our system exists, codifying it in some say (like how the Aussies have done) and have an electoral system that more reflects that reality. If we are going to have national tours and put emphasis on a national campaign, perhaps it is time for a constituency of national voters to elect leaders. If we are going to do away with the idea of geographic ridings and look at the country as a whole than we ought to also be prepared for a whole different partisan landscape come election time, especially with any kind of proportional system.
The long and the short of it; we shouldn't be talking electoral reform without talking about parliamentary reform alongside with changes happening in tandem.