Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/14°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
20°/16°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Partly Cloudy
21°/14°

53 Comments

news

The Day After

Election2011_JLostracco2.jpg
Photo by Joanne Lostracco.


Let’s perform an experiment.
Let’s pretend that, instead of there being the Liberals and the New Democrats, we had one party representing the left wing in this country. Call them the Liberal Democrats. Now, granted, there will be some voters who might not want to vote for the Liberal Democrats. (Maybe they don’t like Jack Layton’s moustache.) So let’s assume that, oh, 5 per cent of the Liberal Democrat vote bleeds away to the Tories on the right. While we’re at it, let’s assume that 5 per cent also bleeds to the Greens on the left.


Under this scenario, the Conservatives would not have won the following ridings that they won last night, going from east to west: Labrador, South Shore-St. Margaret’s, Madawaska-Restigouche, Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, Montmagny-L’islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Ottawa-Orléans, Ottawa West-Nepean, Nipissing-Timiskaming, Sault Ste. Marie, Ajax-Pickering, Pickering-Scarborough East, Scarborough Centre, Don Valley East, Don Valley West, Eglinton-Lawrence, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mississauga East-Cooksville, Richmond Hill, Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Mississauga-Brampton South, Brampton West, Mississauga-Streetsville, Mississauga-Erindale, Kitchener-Waterloo, Kitchener Centre, London North Centre, London West, Winnipeg South Centre, Vancouver South, Vancouver Island North, and Yukon.
That’s 31 ridings. Under this scenario, the Tories win 135 seats and the Liberal Democrats 168.
Similarly, under a single transferable vote system—in which a voter would be able to rank her choices of candidate in order—the Tories would almost certainly lose at least that many seats and likely a few more on top of it, even with the New Democrats and Liberals both extant. How about a purely proportional vote system? Well, in that case, the Conservatives would have scored 122 seats, versus the NDP’s 95, the Liberals’ 58, the Bloc Quebecois’s 19 and the Green Party’s 14: good for a minority, but likely unable to stop an eventual coalition.
This, then, is the first point that the talking heads on TV kept ignoring last night when they talked about Harper having received a “mandate”: the Conservatives don’t have the support of a majority of this country. They have never had it. They’ve had a system that benefits there being only one right-wing party, and they’ve worked that system like a son of a bitch. Good for them: it’s the rational thing for them to do. So please, everybody on Facebook and Twitter (and Myspace, if anybody is still there) whining about how you’re “disappointed in Canada,” just shut up, because Canadians simply didn’t express their overwhelming love for all things Tory: the majority of Canadians got snaked.
The second point that the talking heads ignored is this: for all the happy talk about a comeback from last night, the Liberal Party is a dead party walking. Stephen Harper and the Tories have wanted to kill public electoral funding for years: well, now they can and will. (If it takes them more than three months, I’ll be shocked.) The NDP can survive that, because Jack Layton is one of the most tactically farsighted party leaders in Canadian history and he’s spent five years building up a funding base for the NDP that honestly rivals the Tories.
But the Liberals have never gotten past being nostalgic for that time when they were the party of rich Bay Street donors; those rich Bay Street donors are all donating to Conservatives now, because rich Bay Street donors like winners and the Liberals aren’t winners. The Liberals have no funding stream and their support is withering on the vine: without public funding they’ll cling to official party status until they lose it, and it doesn’t matter how charismatic Justin Trudeau is—they will fall apart.
The bottom line is this: the Liberals need to swallow what little remains of their pride and merge with the New Democrats. There can be no functioning left wing in this country while it is represented by three or four parties all at once, and certainly not with two major parties, one centre-left and one left-centre, competing for the same pool of votes. This election has made that crystal clear.
Granted, if we had an electoral system that wasn’t an outdated relic from pre-Renaissance England, this wouldn’t be a problem. But we do have that system, and we’re not going to be able to replace it as things currently stand—not unless the Conservatives absolutely crater in support and lose an election so dramatically as to themselves splinter. Left-wingers, liberals, and left-centrists in this country need to face facts: we have a first-past-the-post system, and if the left wants to win under that system (and then maybe get a better one in its place) then they need one party, not two or three of them.

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/AgentFoo Foo

    This article is that most bittersweet of combinations: Sad and true.

  • http://twitter.com/Nerfgun Nerfgun

    Ok, so I was one of those who were moaning about 905ers and Conservative voters, but you make a very good point. The votes are actually there for a left-leaning gov't. But they've tried to approach proportional representation before, and it gets nowhere. How do we possibly fix it NOW?

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    A two party system is a huge step backwards for democracy in this country, which means it'll fit in perfectly with Harper's plans to turn us into Little America.

  • http://www.leschinskidesign.com/contact/addme picard102

    It's funny how vote splitting is only a banner issue when the conservatives win a majority, but when the Liberals benefited the same in 98 with even less of the popular vote I'm sure the left was silent on the issue.

  • EtobicokeDad

    Waaaa, waaa, waaaa. Crybaby.

  • http://twitter.com/fischerville ian pert

    Very well-written and optimistic.
    However, i think there's a key point you're missing. Any system such as the one you mentioned, any fairly-designed and reasonably proportional system, would necessarily kneecap Québec which has an advantage under the system we currently have. This has been, and will continue to be for the forseeable future, totally anathema to the Canadian left, and would be an enormous hurdle on any debate about proportional representation.

    > “Jack Layton is one of the most tactically farsighted
    > party leaders in Canadian history”
    I don't think you were listening to what Layton was saying out the French side of his mouth.

  • http://twitter.com/fergus30 Heather Ferguson

    I really don't want the liberals and the NDP to merge – the liberals have turned into a party with no solid policy and a centre-right agenda. That's why I think so many people voted NDP, and why the liberals fell. Many people have been voting liberal for years because they believed it was the only Left of centre option that could oppose a conservative government. Notice how many people wanted to vote NDP once they saw that support made it a viable option against the conservatives.

  • http://twitter.com/mightygodking Christopher Bird

    The left didn't have to say anything. Do you know why? Because the right did exactly what I've just said the left should do now: they united into one party to better take advantage of the existing system and increase their chances of governance. All I'm saying is that maybe the left should consider doing something that the right has proven works.

  • AlexanderWiebe

    So it's right or wrong depending on who complains about it? How about discussing the idea on its merits?

    I for one supported adopting proportional representation in Ontario even though we had a Liberal gov't that I voted for, because I believe it's a better system.

    The problem is we have a party system designed for proportional representation, but voting is built for a 2-party structure. It's a square peg and a round hole. We need to be consistent, either by adjusting the voting or the parties.

  • rickm81

    First of all, about the Conservatives not having “the support of a majority of this country.” Very few winners ever do. A real majority would be over 50% of all Canadians (not just Canadian voters.) This rarely happens. You would need to have an incredibly high voter turnout and an incredibly popular party for this to happen.

    Your “Liberal Democrats” idea wouldn't have that kind of majority either. In fact, with any sort of proportional representation system, you would see even fewer parties elected with anything resembling a majority.

    Also, the Liberals and the NDP are not both “on the left.” The Liberals are more central, with some ideas being more left and some being more right. The NDP is on the left.

    Both parties would be alienating their own supporters by merging.

  • http://twitter.com/markdury Mark Dury

    funny running into you here.

    http://www.fairvote.ca/

  • http://piorkowski.ca qviri

    Right now, it looks like it'd be a merger like PC-Reform was a merger.

  • avp77

    For the two parties to merge and have any chance of forming a government, the NDP would need to make some pretty radical steps, like entirely separating its governing structure from union influence, and disavowing much of its far-left ideology. However you feel about these parts of their identity, they are in no way mainstream views, and won't have the sustained support of a large cross-section of Canada.

    The Liberals, drawing on their history of Paul Martin budgets, might have had more success trying to out-flank the Conservatives on the right on economic issues, providing a program of big cuts, frugality, and belt-tightening, to contrast with Conservative spending boondoggles.

  • tomwest

    Do you mean 1997? if you do, then the Liberals got 38.46%, Reform got 19.35%, and the PC 18.84%… which means the Liberals for more than the refform and PC combined (just).

    This time, the PC got 39.6%, which is LESS than the combined total for the NDP and Liberals (30.6% + 18.9% = 49.5%).

    Also, when was the last time a party in canada got a majority of seats AND more than 50% of the vote?

    Parties merging to improve the electoral odds is not without precedent (Current PCs, the Saskatchewan Party).

  • tomwest

    So, you want the NDP to be less left-wing; and then the Liberals to be more right-wing than the Conservatives? So everyone is then right-wing? No thanks…

  • http://twitter.com/sean_dixon Sean Dixon

    I think Elizabeth May might have something to say to you about that.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    She won't get a chance to say it in parliament; her party is still 11 seats shy of official party status.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IYEK6SBRX2WMQBYCBCK5P5V36M Curtis

    The Liberals and NDP will merge like oil and water merge.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    They didn't have to do any of that to achieve opposition status, why would they to gain 20-30 more seats (minority gov't territory, roughly)? Depending on how badly Harper mutilates this country in the next 4 years, the NDP could stay the course and pick up all the alienated Liberal and socially liberal Conservative voters.

  • avp77

    Well, what I “want” would be a totally different issue. I was just pointing out that if the Liberals merged with the NDP, as suggested in the article, and the NDP retained its hardcore socialist identity, then, if there were only 2 major parties, you'd be looking at pretty much a perpetual Conservative majority.

    As for the comment on the Liberals, it was just a suggestion for something different they could have tried. Because it seems like the current strategy didn't wor so good…

  • avp77

    Well, I would say the current NDP surge has a lot of other factors behind it, especially with the Quebec wave, as evidenced by the woman (sorry, I forget her name) who doesn't live in the riding, doesn't speak much french, and was on Vegas vacation for part of the election.

    Other parties that swept Quebec in a big way, but were never given the full reigns of power, are the Bloc and the ADQ (provincially)…and they were eventually dumped just as easily as the NDP could be.

  • torontothegreat

    who?

  • http://twitter.com/mix1_home Michael Shebetun

    Yeh, Liberals liked the system when they were at helm. They won some majorities on split-vote too. Besides, there will be no merger as every single leader wants to win it for himself.

  • torontothegreat

    I'd have to disagree with this. The right likes the way it currently is (IMHO). They can split the center and left votes to come up the middle. Which is exactly what they've been (again, IMHO) trying to do for years.

    Preston Manning confirmed my above sentiment last night.

    I think a 2 party system could be more positive, for the reasons above. Although fixing the electoral process is top of my mind, I can't see that happening anytime soon.

  • torontothegreat

    You don't like the idea of checks and balances? Minority governments, force working together in a coalition. There are several shining examples of this in europe.

  • torontothegreat

    The song “Friday” has now hit the mainstream after being covered by Katie Perry. Being mainstream isn't and shouldn't be a litmus test for party ideology, that's ridiculous logic.

    The pro-labour stance of the NDP is (or should be) common ground for us common people. Problem is, most people don't like to believe that they are just “common” people.

  • http://twitter.com/mightygodking Christopher Bird

    “Your “Liberal Democrats” idea wouldn't have that kind of majority either, but you seem to be happy with them being in power.”

    The Liberal Democrats, in the above scenario, would have won their majority with more than fifty percent of the vote. That's a start towards electoral results matching popular will.

  • http://twitter.com/ladee_j Judith Christensen

    such typical rhetoric from your paper…

  • rickm81

    Even so, why would the NDP want to merge? They've finally broken through on their own.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Of course there were other factors at work, but the NDP and Conservatives don't exactly share the same voter pool. If the NDP is tossed aside in Quebec in four years, those votes will be going to resurgent Liberals and/or Bloc.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    There's being a poor loser, then there's being a poor winner. Go re-tweet some more National Post if you find this “paper” isn't to your liking.

  • torontothegreat

    What paper? Are you that daft? That's a RHETORICal question, btw. I thought I'd point that out, cause it probably wasn't obvs to you.

  • avp77

    Isn't appeal to a large, indeed the largest, portion of the population, a core principle of democratic political systems? There's certainly room to criticize this, but in that case it sounds like you would be more at home advocating a different system, whether it be a dictatorship, strong monarchy, or some sort of meritocracy (like the Catholic Church) which has minimal input from the masses.

    Honestly not trolling. I do think democracy has its large flaws.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jackson.byrne Jackson Byrne

    You don't complain when you win. That's just frivolous cynicism.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    “Isn't appeal to a large, indeed the largest, portion of the population, a core principle of democratic political systems?”

    It's consistent with the principle, but “the tyranny of the majority” can ignore or sweep aside all minority rights and dissenting opinions without consequence, which is a real danger of FPTP, and that's antithetical to the values underscoring democracy.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    The Liberals and Bloc unintentionally helped them out quite a bit. The sticking test will come in October 2015.

  • tomwest

    So you're saying the majority of Canadians are centre-right, and that therefore all parties should match their policies to this, rather than basing them on things like principals, ideals or evidence?

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    I think it's important to say that the principle is appeal to the better natures of a large etc. etc. Appeal to their base instincts is only demagoguery.

  • torontothegreat

    Isn't appeal to a large, indeed the largest, portion of the population, a core principle of democratic political systems?

    – In electing an official? Yes. In representing the country of ALL Canadians. No. The two are not mutually inclusive.

    There's certainly room to criticize this, but in that case it sounds like you would be more at home advocating a different system, whether it be a dictatorship, strong monarchy, or some sort of meritocracy (like the Catholic Church) which has minimal input from the masses.

    – I honestly can't see how you'd draw that FAR conclusion from my stance that the NDP should NOT change their views. It's pretty far reaching (Red Herring territory, actually) and in fact that's all I'm going to say about it.

  • entish

    This article makes the faulty assumptions that 1) the Liberals are on the left at all and 2) the Greens are to the left of the NDP. http://www.politicalcompass.or…

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    I agree that the Conservatives now have zero reason to pursue electoral reform (even the demands of the new opposition won't be pressing, with a minority)—but that's still no reason to cheer the advent of a two-party system.

    I was discussing this with a classmate here in Cambridge (Massachusetts). I said, “We've now got a populist right-ish party facing off against a populist left-ish party,” per Chantal Hébert, “like in the U.S.”

    “No,” he replied, “in the U.S., there are two populist right-wing parties splitting the vote,” which seemed true.

    Even if the Liberals remain their own party, the effective ideological distance between the NDP and Conservatives will narrow in the next campaign, since they will both try to crowd in on the centre as a target of first opportunity.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    For the most part, the Cons already bridge the centre and far-right. They are the party of choice for former Progressive Conservatives willing to be regressive as long as they can still be conservative, and centrist voters who liked (or at least fell for) the Liberals' habit of campaigning left but ruling right and now feel they have no other option.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    A similarity exploited by the Harper camp and their fear-based campaigning.

  • torontothegreat

    I wouldn't go as far as cheering the advent of a two party system, but it would at least effectively stop the vote splitting nonsense that the Reform Party has strategically exploited.

    Your convo with your classmate is dead on and I guess that's a point I hadn't previously considered. If Jake moves more to the centre and the Cons continue pandering to the left but appearing as a centrist party, we will have the plight of our southern neighbours.

  • avp77

    Well, I wouldn't say that most Canadians are centre-right, but the whole right-left thing is something I often cringe at using, since it describes reality so poorly. Generally speaking, Canadians seem pretty fluid with their party affiliation, and are more pragmatic than ideological.

    As for what parties “should” do, it feels like dreaming in technicolor, because one outlier person doesn't make much difference. They're all running on the platform of more government, one way or another.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    “pragmatic”

    Or reactionary, YMMV.

  • http://twitter.com/BoStv Steve Caunce

    The factors that decided this election were:
    1) Harper used Tea Party tactics before the election to run (uncontested) attack ads against Ignatieff. These were so successful that Canadians swallowed them wholesale and even Liberal Party supporters abandoned Ignatieff. Harper also blurred the line between his partisans and the true government so that Canadians believed the authority of the state was behind the ads. This will continue for the next four years and if the opposing parties run counter ads they will be accused of being anti-government.
    2) The Conservative Party on the Riding level worked to get targeted groups out to vote, again long before the election was called. Once Harper was reasonably assured that some key ridings would fall his way he set up the opposition so they would be forced to call the election. By being deliberately belligerent and disrespectful, by holding back information from Parliament for no good reason, Harper engineered the non-confidence vote and was able to blame the Liberals and the Bloc for causing the election.
    Mr. Harper is a master politician, if he acted in the best interests of the Canadian people instead of against them he would be a Master Statesman.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VBPPW22WKUC7AH7V5WMCXINZPQ Ronny

    Of course the most obvious problem with this logic is that you did not consider Canada economic system.

    It does not matter which bourgeois party wins the election the Capitalist economy will dictate what they can and can not do.

    Steve Harper is not an evil person, he just really really thinks that Capitalist is the road to freedom. So every thing he does is to make the system work better. But of course he will find out, as history has proven,that no one can make that economic theory work.

  • Retnan

    Social liberal Conservatives are still economic conservatives and likely care much more about pocket book issues. They aren't voting for the socialist party. The Liberals or Greens could win them over but not the NDP.

  • Eric S. Smith

    and if the opposing parties run counter ads they will be accused of being anti-government.

    “Anti-Canada,” more like. L'état, c'est les conservateurs, n'est-ce pas?

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Lest we forget: Stephen Harper wanted to deregulate the banks and allow foreign banks into the Canadian mortgage market, which would have become an anchor around our necks when the banks of US, England, Iceland, et al, went tits up in '08.

  • Eric S. Smith

    and if the opposing parties run counter ads they will be accused of being anti-government.

    “Anti-Canada,” more like. L'état, c'est les conservateurs, n'est-ce pas?

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Lest we forget: Stephen Harper wanted to deregulate the banks and allow foreign banks into the Canadian mortgage market, which would have become an anchor around our necks when the banks of US, England, Iceland, et al, went tits up in '08.