But we haven't reached the point where we'll take that gruding acceptance that politico's "lie" about this or that policy, to the point where it results in a whole-scale, 180-degree change in government, without an election in between.

1) i don't disagree that is politically fair game to call the coalition illegitimate based on support for the Bloc support or that Dion said he would do know such thing or likely some other reasons. Although i do think that in making the claim one should be clear to differentiate 'political' and 'constitutional' legitimacy. But, I don't follow you reasoning to its end. Harper's primary talking point was 'socialists and separatists' because he knew that while Dion said he would not enter a coalition, he also knew that people expect pols to lie and than justify.

For example, if merely saying you won't do something and then proceed to take up the denounced action rendered a government illegitimate that a raft of his own actions fit the bill (as is the case with likely every other political leader, well, ever.

2) i am not inferring that the German and Canadian systems "are close enough to make coalitions part of the norm here", I don't need to frankly. While there has been only one at the federal level in Canada, the Westminster system has accommodated coalitions during non-war time elsewhere, including at the provincial level. Indeed that Dion was even asked prior makes clear that whether politically they are tenable or not, constitutionally they have always been, and continue to be, 'in the mix' so to speak.

2. Yes, the possibility of forming a coalition exists in both places. But I think the (West) Germans have had nothing but coalitions since WW II. In Canada, I think we've had one (1) actual coalition, with members from different parties serving in Cabinet, in the 20th century, and that was formed during WW I. So it's disingenuous to say that the Canadian & German systems are close enough to make coalitions part of the norm here.

All that said, that was hardly the only reason to oppose the coalition. The fact that it wasn't even on the table – and in fact, was explicitly taken off the table – before the election by the guy who'd be leading it if it came to pass, makes it different from the German situation.

As such, for me, it follows that the primary concern in interpreting the German case vis a vis the Canadian is formally making known who one would and would not form a coalition with and the two cases cannot be distinguished on this point.

… a political system brought from elsewhere and implemented even further asunder….

Back in 1993 the Bloc Québecois formed the Official Opposition despite getting fewer votes than either Reform or the Progressive Conservatives.

In 1993 Bloc voters cast 49.3% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved to elect 36 MPs of Québec’s 74 seats won by parties. But they elected 54, a bonus of 50%.

And they did it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2009/09/bloc-bonus-an…

That's quite a different kettle of fish than what we had here, Paul. (Except for maybe the bit about the German's "ebullient" and "insufferable" junior partner in their coalition, which arguably applies to Jack! – but I digress.)

If the Libs & NDP (for instance) want to go into the next campaign loudly proclaiming their desire to form a coalition so that Canadians can vote accordingly, that would be much closer to the German example than what we've seen, and what I expect we'll see in the next campaign here.

To a point, that's true. But unlike here, in our last election, Merkel was very clear that (a) she expected to form a coalition, and (b) she wanted it to be with the Free Democrats: Source

The money quote (and you'll note that it pre-dates the German election day):

[Merkel] herself has said her preferred coalition partner would be the small, free-market Free Democrats, led by the ebullient Guido Westerwelle, 47, a man many Germans find insufferable

But they have enough heft to give Angela and her new friends some trouble
if they get too frisky.

Strangely enough, Angela is an Ossie herself. But not a local heroine.

What is it with conservatives' suspicions of evidence and comparative examples? Nobody's saying we should ape the Germans – or any other nation – but can it hurt to look at what works in other places? But then again, if you're fond of the term "foreigners," perhaps there's no discussion to be had.

As for the unique Canadian context: we've entered uncharted territory to some extent, with the BQ becoming a permanent fixture of the House, and our newfound disaffection with perpetual minority rule. Why not have a peek at other democracies where they've found ways to get comfortable with the potential permutations of fragmented (non-majority) assemblies?

I, for one, am not willing to take that risk. It is naive to assumption that the existing national political parties, and Canada's current polititcal party framework would survive PR in the House of Commons.

German-style PR requires a relatively homogenous national identiy. Canada's national identity is far more heterogenous. The national bargain (as we know Canada today) has to be brokered within political parties. It would be a far different Canada, an unrecognizable one, if Canada has proportional representation in the House of Commons.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.

What do you call people who live in different countries and don't have Canadian citizenship? Is everyone in the world an honourary Canadian?

"What is it with conservatives' suspicions of evidence and comparative examples?"

I could easily ask what is with liberals and their desire to toss aside a political system that has brought stability and wealth to Canada that few other countries have enjoyed all because they have lost two elections and need to game the system to have a chance at winning another. Conservatives need persuading that a new system of government will be significantly better than the one we currently have, that's all.

GONG – You are WRONG. In Germany it has nothing to with which individual party has the most seats, it is about who is able to put together a coalition. In 1980, Christian Democrats took 44% of the vote, the Social Democrats took 42% and the Free Democrats took 10% (or thereabouts). back then the FDP were coalition partners with the SPD and so Helmut Schmidt of the SPD formed a government because his coalition had a majority of the seats – and no on batted an eyelid. In fact during the entire period of SPD rule from 1969 to 1982 – the Social Democrats were the second largest party. in 1982, the FDP and the SPD had a falling out over economic policy and the FDP pulled out of the coalition and allied itself with the CDU and made Helmut Kohl the new chancellor (shades of what almost happened in Canada in December). There was no need for a new election, just a shift by the FDP changed the government.

It is not only a cheap talking point, it is also irrelevant. Who cares what the Germans do. With this kind of logic, Libs can appoint Iggy dictator for life and point to any number of countries for legitimacy. The Syrians have a dictator, and they aren't freakin' out either, so lets try that system of government!

We have a political culture in Canada that is unique to us and what foreigners get up to during their elections is neither here nor there. If Canadians think a Coalition government of three losers is illegitimate, Libs pointing to Germany is not going to help their argument.

Might have something to do with the fact that they've had proportional representation since at least the Weimer Republic (1919) from what I can find.
http://www.skubi.net/owen_en.html

Any of the coalition partners' main plank involve political independence of part of Germany?

No matter how much heavy weather Stephen Harper made over it, if they defeated him on the second Throne Speech, he'd stay defeated.

I figured it was a way to finesse an election call — make it to the end of January, and the election is set for March, six months after the last, and justifiable enough to the GG to give him a dissolution (given public opinion in favour of having a new vote instead of a coalition government).

Given a united opposition, no matter what Stephen Harper could have said, he'd have gone down.

He survived. May have burned his bridges forever (or just for a couple of years) in Quebec, but he survived.

Sadly, this was not held only by Flanagan, who could mostly be forgiven for the claim, given that he is squarely a partisan regardless what his day job is. Others, such as Spector (who claims he is not a partisan notwithstanding previous day jobs) and Richard van Loon – an academic turned administrator turned kinda-academic – also held up this position. Not to mention A.Potter who made it a central tenet is his argument that the Canadian coalition experiment lacked the requisite 'output legitimacy'.

The rest of your analysis is very interesting. though i suspect that point two applies equally to the CPC (see Coyne's writings on how the CPC has given up the ghost, well before the recession, on fiscal conservatism and especially their mastery of doling out the pork) and any CPC/NDP non-coallition, collaboration that would see Jack get to claim success on delivering social-oriented spending measures (and to be clear the CPC have been clear in their intent on avoiding being seen in cahoots on any such endeavors).

I think it's pretty clear that that's who the man is — and if he goes down, it'll certainly have been helped along by it.

But I still don't see what terrible wrong has been wrought — the system survived Mike Pearson fiddling away an actual lost supply vote in mid-1967 (from which we learnt Stanfield did _not_ have the killer instinct), it survived Paul Martin ignoring a week's worth of Parliament shutdowns in May '05, and it survived Harper pushing off a confidence vote for six weeks in December '08-January '09 while he appealed to public opinion.

He's a politician, and a pretty darned skillful one at that. He may have met his match, and we'll see at the next election. (Which I hope will be soon, because I'm a campaign fan. Best sporting event out there.)

They aren't. They play hardball, but it's firmly within the lines.

When the coalition option came up, the PM had nothing left in the tank. No way to scramble 25 opposition abstentions or 12 floor-crossings. Nothing except to use a procedural trick to delay the vote for a few weeks (prorogation) and to rally public opinion against it.

So that's what he did. It wasn't nice, it wasn't particularly honourable, but it was what he could do — and in the end, the opposition folded. (Which it didn't have to.)

If something similar comes up after the next election, I suspect the results may be quite different — but that's another day, and another parliament.