What the Liberal-Green Agreement Means
Saturday April 14th 2007, 1:02 pm
Filed under: Canadian Politics

I left this comment on Scott Tribe’s blog just now with respect to the Liberal/Green arrangement in Central Nova…

This situation illustrates how problematic our first-past-the-post system really is in a multi-party state. We tried to make it work for about 60 seats as a 3-party system (the result being that we see and increasing number of MPs winning with 30-35%, and a parliament that often bears no relation to the first-preferences of Canadians). The situation became even more odd after 1993 with the right vote split across 3 parties, due to the birth of Reform and the Bloc, which allowed the Liberals to rule unopposed for over a decade (with 38% 40% of votes resulting in 60%+ of seats). It is also resulted in one of the founding parties, the Tories, being killed off — subsumed into the new Conservative Party. By limiting electoral choice on the right, the situation has improved somewhat in terms of the vote/seat mismatch (but with the obvious problem that we have less choice now). But suddenly, with the rise of the Greens, we are back to trying to make an electoral system that was designed for a 2-party system work with a 5-party system. That leads to the kinds of arrangement made between the Greens and Liberals. If the progressive vote is now being split across 3 parties (possibly 4 in Quebec), if non-compete arrangements aren’t made, then the other natural result will be a merger of progressive parties (the same as happened on the right), again limiting choice. Some have even speculated that the rise of the ADQ in Quebec (and subsequent fall of the PQ) suggests that some of the old rural Quebec conservative vote may well re-align with the new Conservatives. With consolidation happening on both the left and right, you see where this is headed: the winner-takes-all nature of our electoral system tends back towards 2-party rule, which is of course, what it is designed to do (at best, it will lead back to 3-party rule). What this agreement between the Liberals and Greens suggests is that it is long time to add an element of proportionality to our electoral system so that Canadians can have real voter choice where their votes really count — a system where we keep our local MPs but add regional MPs elected on a proportional basis. Only then will voters have real choice and get the parliament they really asked for.


6 Comments/commentaires
Leave a comment/Enregistrer un commentaire

OK, here`s the situation. One party in the House of Commons cannot form a government, since it is regional. The Bloc Québécois. As long as one regional party can occupy 17% of the seats in the Commons, it will be more and more difficult for either the big guys (Liberals or Conservatives) to get a majority government. We had better get used to the ides of minority government.

Comment/commentaire by Ernest Dupont 04.14.07 @ 5:38 pm

This is not a deal between the Liberals and Greens-it is a deal between Dion and May with few of their respective parties having any say in it. It is designed by Dion and May to persude Greens or those thinking themselves “green” to vote Liberal in 307 ridings and somee Liberals to vote Green in Central Nova. It may give May a seat in the House. though that is unlikely, and basically delivers her and her party to the Liberals.

Comment/commentaire by peterjcassidy 04.14.07 @ 6:05 pm

Peterjcassidy, frankly, there are only a few ridings in which the Greens stand a chance. Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ottawa Centre, maybe Toronto Centre if they get their act together, plus May in Central Nova. For the Greens to be effective as a party, they need to be able to target just a few seats nationwide, those seats. An agreement with the Liberals frees them up to do just that.

Comment/commentaire by Tom 04.15.07 @ 7:29 am

its a shame really, Along with proportional representation, I am wishing we’d take a look at our leader debates.

Comment/commentaire by Matt Casselman 04.15.07 @ 3:43 pm

When did the Liberals under Chrétien ever form a government “with 38% of votes resulting in 60%+ of seats”?

The only time Chrétieh got 60% of the seats was in 93, with over 41% of the vote. He had 38% in 97, but eked out a bare majority. In 2000, he took 57% of the seats, on just under 41% of the vote.

Comment/commentaire by WJM 04.16.07 @ 9:09 pm

Yes! Thank you.

Comment/commentaire by Idealistic Pragmatist 04.19.07 @ 2:35 pm



Leave a comment/Laisser un commentaire
E-mail address never displayed/Votre adresse email ne sera jamais publiee. HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required/requis)

(required/requis)



If your comment doesn't appear, it is because our automatic anti-spam software is blocking it. If so, just send us an email and we will post it for you.