There is much talk these days about the Liberals and NDP merging to form a new “Liberal Democrat” party. This is foolish. The only reason they are even considering it is to prevent Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from forming the next government, not because they share policy positions. Liberals and New Democrats would be better off supporting electoral reform instead — to introduce some element of proportionality into our voting system, so that the composition of parliament closely resembles the level of support a party receives (which can be done by still directly electing every MP without the dreaded closed party lists that some people fear).

Single-party federal majorities are becoming a thing of the past. No single party is truly national. We have a party whose support is largely rural and suburban (Conservatives), a party whose support is largely urban (Liberals), a party whose support is largely in heavily unionized areas (NDP), and a party whose support is in Quebec (Bloc). I don’t see this fundamentally changing any time soon. These are natural tendencies, given different shared interests.

And Canada has been living with a minority government for six years already. We’ve been operating in a situation where one party has to count on the support of another on an issue-by-issue basis. That would be fine if not for our voting system, which is the very thing that creates uncertainty and instability. Why? Because minute shifts in public sentiment can reward one party with a bounty of seats won by narrow margins. So we see endless games on Parliament Hill. A better (more stable) situation instead of perpetual minorities governments and political charades would be stable two-party coalitions, which would be the most common result of a more proportional voting system.

Electoral reform is not only more genuine than merger, in that Liberal and NDP supporters could still vote for their respective parties (and not limit democratic choices), but it is also more strategic, in that the net support for the two parties individually is actually higher than would be for a merger entity. Recall when the Alliance and PC merged, they lost 1 in 5 votes from what the have individually (the Alliance had about 25% support and the PCs 12% — 37% individually — but ended up with about 30% under the new banner). Put it this way: the Liberals currently have about 28% support and the NDP 17%, collectively 45% — strong enough to form a stable coalition government — but a “Liberal Democrat” party might expect to lose 1 in 5 votes, giving it only 36% — and likely still lose to the Conservatives, who would be the beneficiary of that lost support.

So Liberals and New Democrats, it’s time to start taking embrace electoral reform seriously and put away talk of merging.

A governing coalition is forming to replace the Conservatives, who have lost the confidence of the majority of Canadian MPs. But the key question of who should lead that coalition remains. Given they have the largest caucus, it’s clear that a Liberal will lead the coalition. However, since Liberal leader Stephane Dion just lost an election and has decided to step down in May, he may not be the best choice. Nor would Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff, the perceived front-runner for Liberal leader and who has the support of the lion’s share of Liberal MPs. The choice of Ignatieff would be seen as a power grab by rival leadership contenders such as Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc. The coalition would start off divided if Ignatieff took over now. A neutral third party within the Liberal Party that can also win the confidence of the NDP and Bloc would be the best choice.

Why not John McCallum? The coalition’s legitimacy and survival depends on gaining the confidence of Canadians to deal with the economic crisis. An economic stimulus package is priority #1. John McCallum has the gravitas and economic bonafides to present the competence and seriousness of purpose required at this time. He is an economist, being formerly the Chief Economist for the Royal Bank of Canada and economics professor at McGill, U Manitoba and Simon Fraser. He represents Markham in the House but is from Montreal. So he’s lived in Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and B.C., so likely has a reasonable understanding of the geographic diversity of the country, and speaks french. And he’s been a senior cabinet minister in government, as well as chair of the Expenditure Review Committee (responsible for cutting wasteful spending).

So why not John McCallum as interim Coalition leader?

Update: It appears that Dion as potential coalition leader is not a done deal. The Toronto Star is reporting that he is likely to step down before Christmas. John McCallum and Ralph Goodale are mentioned as possible interim leaders.