Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'The one exception is Canada'

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:52pm - 0 Comments

In light of the Australian result, Patrick Dunleavy with the London School of Economics surveys the world’s major Westminster parliaments, the state of governance and the possibility of electoral reform.

Although Duverger’s Law is clearly dead, and the idea of using a voting system to artificially create Parliamentary majorities is on its deathbed. But in all five these countries, the executive is still in a powerful position relative to the legislature … Yet although ‘Westminster model’ countries continue to share a powerful institutional heritage, it seems doubtful that the electoral aspects of the model can ever be the same again. For the UK’s forthcoming referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote, this recognition that the world as a whole is changing towards more complex and multi-party politics may sway some more voters and politicians towards backing reform.

Then again, since the Australian system, like ‘first past the post’ elections, has now failed to produce a clear electoral outcome, those who hanker after artificial majorities may take it as further reason for opposing change.

Bookmark and Share
  • Stewart_Smith

    I have recently solved this issue for the Australians and would be happy to devise an appropriate regional solution for any country that wishes to retain my services. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/22/dirty-harry-th…

    • John D

      After extensive research, yours seems to be the best solution

    • LynnTO

      Something to chew on, that's for certain.

    • Sigh

      I understand the pot-protecting bears in BC are looking for work.

  • Emily

    Trust Harper to be on the wrong side of history…again.

    • ex-canuck

      Emily, methinks thou dost overdo the anti-Steven Harper harangue. Lighten up and find a balance. If you are so anti-Harper, what is your proposal as a short term alternative?

      • Emily

        I don't like Harper, and I say so. That is still legal unless he's changed that too..

        Don't tell people concerned about the situation that they should 'lighten up'.

        You apparently 'lightened up' so much, you left.

        • ex-canuck

          Long before Mr Harper came along. His presence might induce other exes to return. You seem to have no idea of how Canada's respect around the world has increased due to Mr Harper's rational leadership. I know you will pour scorn on such a comment, but then Harper-scorn seems your default position.

          • Emily

            Well it hasn't encouraged anyone beyond Iggy to return, in 4 years.

            I know how Canada is thought of around the world now. We are a laughing stock, and everyone is waiting for rational govt to return.

            I scorn people that need scorning. That would be Harper.

  • Kelvin

    I think that article may be jumping the gun re. UK electoral reform.
    http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/08/22/alternat…

    I really don't think the Australian experience is a wholesale indictment on majoritarian electoral systems. It really does take a certain degree of (bad) luck that a system that where 96% of the seats are held by two major blocs can end up being so evenly divided. They also don't have the type of massive regional preferences that lead to Tory landslides in the Prairies and BQ landslides in Quebec: both blocs are generally competitive throughout the country, so they're less likely to have disproportate results stemming from regional strongholds.

  • Jenn_

    I think this is a very interesting phenomenon, and really pushes the conclusion that PR has to be the way to go. I can't envision that multi-parties are just suddenly going to disappear–we have far too much choice in our lives now to ever accept that. I had been amenable to Alternative Vote, but the Aussie results show that doesn't always work, either. I would still like to elect a local representative, although I understand PR has a way to do that–but if the local (backbench) MP has as much power as he does in our current system maybe that is just a reaction against change on my part, without any logical reasoning to support it.

    Also, can someone explain Duverger's Law to me in, uh, common(woman) English?

    • Kelvin

      Duverger's is basically a tendency for two big parties to become dominant in first-past-the-post, because it's harder for smaller parties to take any individual seat, and so people aren't as inclined to vote for them.

    • Bryan

      Duverger's law is (basically) that an electoral system with single-member districts will lead to a two-party system, while a proportional system will lead to multiple parties. But now we have minorities and multiple parties in all the main Westminster legislatures despite their electoral systems. We were told that the reason for tolerating discrepancies between % of votes and % of seats was to avoid this…

      • Jenn_

        Thanks, Kelvin and Bryan. Explained nicely.

      • Garnet

        So in terms of minor parties, both the defence of FPTP and the criticism of it are out of date. Goin' back to sleep now!

        • hosertohoosier

          Not all of them. A few features of the Westminster system remain in place:

          1. High levels of party discipline
          2. Small shifts in the popular vote yield large shifts in the number of seats
          3. All voters have a local link to the national government in the form of their MP

          They all have their pros and cons. #1 creates a leader-led system, which can result in more coherent policies and a greater focus on swing voters (since leaders need those to become prime minister). However, this also conflicts with some of the advantages of #3, and may make governments less flexible. #2 generates a very adversarial sort of politics, and limits opportunities for cooperation. On the other hand, the absence of compromise can help voters assign responsibility, so as to reward or chasten bad governments. It IS possible to throw the bums out.

          • Stewart_Smith

            Is there a structural reason party discipline is so tight in Canada?

          • Charles

            You would expect strong party discipline in any system with (a) responsible government and (b) a strong party role in nominating local candidates. Because the government only serves at the whim of the majority in the lower house, there is a huge incentive for all of the members of the governing party to work together so that they don't lose power. This job is made much easier by giving the parties themselves a huge role in picking local candidates, because they can help weed out candidates who would not support the party on key votes.

            A better question may be not why party discipline is so tight, but why so few things are done as free votes. It makes sense for the governing party to vote as a block on things like the budget that could lead to a fall of government, but it's not clear why party-line votes are needed for less important things.

  • Emily

    Heavens yes, we wouldn't want to contemplate change from something invented in 1295 CE.

    You were doing not too badly though until you got to the second last para. Afghanistan has turned into a mess because of 'mission creep', there has been no 'robust' response to the economic crisis, and the only reason Parliament passes anything is because of fear of an election. That doesn't mean even the MPs agree with it, much less the country.

    • hosertohoosier

      Canada has the lowest deficit and highest growth in the G-7. Our multi-billion dollar stimulus – which was the result of compromise between two parties that collectively won 63% of the vote – wisely concentrated on infrastructure spending, which has a high multiplier effect. I would say that this is indeed a robust response. In comparison, the US stimulus – though larger – was poorly targeted (a lot of it went into low income tax cuts which do not have the same bang), and in many cases failed to offset spending cuts at the state level (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=2&FirstYear=2009&LastYear=2010&Freq=Qtr).

      As for Afghanistan, I agree that the war was a mess. However, Canada's bipartisan response to that mess has been appropriate: to first see if it can be fixed (a goal that squares well with Canada's already-planned restoration of its armed forces), and failing that, to turn to a non-military approach.

      Also, why should the motives of MP's be all that important? If there was a majority government, MP's would vote out of fear of the whip. This is politics – there are no saints.

    • Charles

      In all fairness, there have been quite a few changes to the way the UK Parliament works since 1295. A few of the major ones: dramatic increase in the power of the Commons vis-a-vis the Lords, expanded suffrage for the Commons, abolition of the rotten boroughs, etc. And now, maybe, implementation of the Alternative Vote.

  • Ceeger

    Well put!

  • LynnTO

    I agree with most of your points, but this one:
    Canada is a well-governed country that is not in need of radical change.

    Our electoral system works exactly the way that it's designed to, as does our bicameral legislative body. But other parliamentary staples, such as committees, question period, executive power, and the division of powers, do require some overhaul and modernization in order to deal with the current realities of political gamesmanship and the growing spectre of media (both mainstream and new).

    I'd also argue that political parties could use some kick in the pants, too, but it's hard to tell a private body what to do – even if it does operate almost entirely in a public sphere.

    • Emily

      The malaise Canada….and most other western countries….is in according to polls and election results point to a need for change….radical change.

      Otherwise everyone just drifts, and this is no time to be drifting.

      • ex-canuck

        If there is malaise, and one supposes there is, then look to a shortage of money caused by a bloated bureaucracy, the characteristic of an over-ripe post war social democratic ethos.

        • Emily

          Oh enough with the tired old ideology.

          Nobody in Canada stis up nights worrying about bureaucracy.

          • LynnTO

            I do, but I'm special.

          • Emily

            LOL well if it's your job you might worry….because that's more likely to be a cause of sleepless nights for Canadians.

            What gets me is that Cons still gripe about this, yet Harper has hired more than ever.

          • hosertohoosier

            I could tolerate your cynicism if it were rooted in fact. If you look at federal administrative employees outside of the military as a % of the workforce, they have gone from 1.93% of the workforce in 2006 to 2.008% in 2009 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/govt19a-eng.htm). This is hardly more hires than ever before (especially since the workforce has not increased very much). In fact, in the last year of Liberal rule the number of federal administrative employees increased as much as in Harper's entire term in office.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Apparently the one sure way to better governance is to bleed a little.
    http://frontiersofhumanknowledge.com/the-blood-ma…

  • Style

    Does inducing three independent MPs to vote with you really count as coalition government? Does that make the Martin government a coalition?

    Also, is the US a two-party system or a multi-party system with two caucuses at the federal level? The Democratic caucus seems to consist of representatives from a bunch of oddly named parties (e.g. Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party). It's like it's India, but in disguise.

    • Emily

      Abbot's party is already a coalition.

      • Style

        "The Coalition in Australian politics refers to a group of centre-right parties that has existed in the form of a coalition agreement since 1922…which is facilitated by the STV system that's been in place since 1918" In a FPP system, the two parties would have merged. And in Australia, they are generally considered one party.

        • Loraine Lamontagne

          My oh my, coalitions can be really stable – nearly 92 years for this one.

          • Style

            Yes, similar Canadian coalitions have been pretty stable as well – the Liberal-Conservative coalition from 1867 was pretty durable, and the coalition of Progressives and Conservatives has had a good run too.

  • Mike T.

    I would be interested to see how opponents of multiparty/coaltion governments in these countries, if any, frame their arguments against it.

    Would somebody be laughed at by proposing a government in, say, 2004, then calling an attempt by another party illegitimate a few years later? Would the public of other countries swallow a distinction between a party agreeing to two years of unconditional support (OMG THEY'RE A FULL MEMBER THE COUNTRY IS OVER!!!) and just being part of the government which keeps voting confidence? Do they keep inventing new conditions for legitimacy like they do here? ("Oh, well, a government of two parties, that might be OK (so long as it never happens if we are not one of the two parties) but THREE would be a disaster for the country! Why, why, it might result in a non-confidence vote and an election!")

  • Jenn_

    I think it needs a bit of tweaking, but not with point number 4.

    How is that a disadvantage? I think that would be great! I cannot imagine anything more disheartening than for your polls to close, you immediately turn on the TV, and they've already declared a winner. Talk about a vote not counting!

    • Emily

      And if a winner was announced 4 hours later would it make any difference?

    • Thwim

      Oh. Whoops.. that was an after edit, actually.. it was meant to go in the advantages side.

  • s_c_f

    Usually, when someone writes 'the one exception is Canada', that person is wrong. Usually that person never bothered to look elsewhere.

    • Emily

      Well actually he did. He's comparing countries.

      • s_c_f

        Read hosertohoosier's comment.

        • Emily

          You read them.

  • madeyoulook

    Thought experiment for fun and amusement and possible ill-informed debate:

    I wonder what the Australian result would have been if they did not have mandatory voting? Which party benefitted most from the turnout of the uninformed, the coerced-otherwise-unwilling, and the mischievous?

    • Stewart_Smith

      Apparently the lefties need the added inducement to show up http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU…

      • Stewart_Smith

        Although Harper is apparently considered a revised version of the Australian system which will henceforth be known as the manda-Tory voting system.

      • madeyoulook

        Hey. HEY! I said ill-informed debate! What's with this 17-page Electoral Studies scholarly journal article?

  • NorthernPoV

    @MYL
    Hey – the linked article says turnout was ….. 75%
    What gives?
    Is Australian voting even less mandaTORY than … that other thing …. I already forgot about cause its not worth discussing he he

    • madeyoulook

      You mean they want to make it mandatory for BC junkies to go to Insite?

      • NorthernPoV

        no, – OK I remember now – if you insist… that really long form that used to be MANdaTORY

        • madeyoulook

          Hmm… NPV just emphasized MAN upthread as the hint…

          (Winnie-the-Pooh style) Think, think, think…

          (light bulb)
          Oh No! You mean the Scandinavian rule of guys sitting down to pee has now been enacted here?

  • jkg

    Would you think that a MMP model similar to what was proposed in Ontario actually disrupt regionalist links to Parliament in general? The reason why I ask is that the proposed Ontario MMP system would have had a ranked list of Party MPs on top of your own riding list of MPs (I believe that is how it was explained, correct me if I am wrong). I would think that given population and geographic density, those extra 'Party MPs' would probably cater to areas of greatest return i.e. densely populated areas. Thus, it would seem that you would have a de facto increase in certain regions' representation at the expense of others.

    I would surmise that this may be a negligible effect as you alluded. I wonder though if the FTP puts a more stringent upper limit on how much electoral return you get for focusing on certain regions, since you are limited by the number of ridings in that particular region. In the MMP system as Ontario proposed, the upper limit would be the combined proportion of seats that are available to 'Party MPs' as well as the areas for which there are a lot more ridings.

    • hosertohoosier

      I think the proponents of MMP largely fail to understand the roots of regionalism. MMP would certainly reduce the regional concentration of MPs, and make explicitly regional parties like the Bloc Quebecois less successful. However, they tend to ignore the effects of a second feature of PR systems – ease of party entry. Because it is easy to form new parties, brokerage across cleavages (be they class or region) becomes dangerous. Leaders risk alienating party activists who might break off and form their own party. Exciting turnout within one's base becomes more useful, not less (whereas Liberal turnout in Westmount or Conservative turnout in Medicine Hat are irrelevant in FPTP).

      For instance, imagine such a system in Quebec provincially. The main cleavage in Quebec revolves around the national question. A Bouchard-Marois type leader that supports sovereignty as a long-term goal but eschews an immediate referendum would likely face a defection from hardcore separatists, who could form their own party (to some degree Quebec solidaire IS such a party, but FPTP prevents it from being successful). Under FPTP, even if only 15% of Quebec is made up of wishy washy separatists, they are essential for the Bloc to win.

      To some extent it comes down to what you believe about the motivations of politicians. If you believe governments act in the interests of their core constituencies, then FPTP will aggravate regionalism by ensuring regionally concentrated governments. If you believe that governments tend to target swing constituencies, then it is actually MMP that aggravates regionalism (assuming region is a major cleavage in the system) by countering brokerage incentives with the fear of new party entry.

      Regionalism certainly persists in Germany. The CSU (essentially the Bavarian wing of the CDU) regularly sweeps Bavaria, and has provided a number of the party's candidates for chancellor. Similarly, the left party is very much reliant upon support from former East Germany. Your point about cities is an interesting one as well. Since it would be more cost efficient to campaign in cities, I could definitely see an urban bias developing in MMP systems.

      • jkg

        Because it is easy to form new parties, brokerage across cleavages (be they class or region) becomes dangerous.

        I suspected that this was related to a feature of FTP in which establishing a 'broad consensus' is necessary for political parties. Thus, while the popular vote may be derided as low, a broad consensus means that a certain level of brokerage is attained, which will partially satisfy voters even if they didn't vote for the MP of that party.

        To some extent it comes down to what you believe about the motivations of politicians.

        That is a very good point, an overlooked variable, which implies that what motivates political strategy guides regionalist imbalance more so than a the feature of the voting system.

        Since it would be more cost efficient to campaign in cities, I could definitely see an urban bias developing in MMP systems.

        And if we take your previous point about the ease of party entry and assume there will always be a subset of smaller parties with limited funding, there would be intense competition for urban centers.

  • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

    …the uninformed, the coerced-otherwise-unwilling, and the mischievous…

    A more interesting question might be, "To what percentage of willing voters do the first and third descriptors apply?"

From Macleans