catbear (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} catbear) wrote,@ 2008-10-15 09:16:00 |
|
Unfortunate Myths
A frequent refrain to disgruntled voters the morning after is, "we get the government we deserve." Unfortunately, that's not true. In Canada, unlike the U.S., there are five viable political parties. But we still use the majority-wins system of electing representatives. So that means for example, that
* 6.8% of the population can vote for their Green party candidate, but NO Green party members will sit at Parliament, while
* 10% of the population can vote for the Bloc Quebecois, and they will get 50 seats at Parliament.
The difference of course is that the votes for Green were spread all over 308 district elections around the country, while the votes for the Bloc were concentrated in Quebec.
Another problem is that from a character standpoint there is a Conservative party which is not entirely unlike the U.S. Republicans. The other three* national parties (Liberal, Green and NDP) typically distance themselves from the Conservatives than each other, resulting in what might be called the Perot effect, such that
* while 37.5% of the country voted Conservative, electing 46.4% of seats,
* 26.4% voted Liberal, electing 24.6% of saets,
* 18.2% voted NDP, electing 12% of seats, and,
* 6.8% voted Green, electing no-one.
If you add up Liberal+NDP+Green votes, that's 51.4% votes against the Conservative Party. And if there had been no NDP or Green candidates, the Liberals might well have swept to a clear majority government (not every NDP or Green voter would choose Liberal in the absence of choice, but clearly most would; the Conservative platform is far away from these others).
I think the existence of a variety of political parties -- instead of just two -- is an excellent thing in a society. However, with "majority takes all" election systems, it's very difficult to raise an opposing consensus.
I'm running out of steam here, but the gist of the matter is that Canada needs a new electoral system, one based on preferential or mixed/proportionality voting. If for no other reason than the Greens -- who deserve far better than they got.
I do hope Andy Telegdi gets some time in to tend his garden.
* The Bloc Quebecois is concentrated in Quebec, of course. They're not, and never will be, a nationally viable party, although they will certainly continue to strongly represent francophone interests in Parliament for decades.
A frequent refrain to disgruntled voters the morning after is, "we get the government we deserve." Unfortunately, that's not true. In Canada, unlike the U.S., there are five viable political parties. But we still use the majority-wins system of electing representatives. So that means for example, that
* 6.8% of the population can vote for their Green party candidate, but NO Green party members will sit at Parliament, while
* 10% of the population can vote for the Bloc Quebecois, and they will get 50 seats at Parliament.
The difference of course is that the votes for Green were spread all over 308 district elections around the country, while the votes for the Bloc were concentrated in Quebec.
Another problem is that from a character standpoint there is a Conservative party which is not entirely unlike the U.S. Republicans. The other three* national parties (Liberal, Green and NDP) typically distance themselves from the Conservatives than each other, resulting in what might be called the Perot effect, such that
* while 37.5% of the country voted Conservative, electing 46.4% of seats,
* 26.4% voted Liberal, electing 24.6% of saets,
* 18.2% voted NDP, electing 12% of seats, and,
* 6.8% voted Green, electing no-one.
If you add up Liberal+NDP+Green votes, that's 51.4% votes against the Conservative Party. And if there had been no NDP or Green candidates, the Liberals might well have swept to a clear majority government (not every NDP or Green voter would choose Liberal in the absence of choice, but clearly most would; the Conservative platform is far away from these others).
I think the existence of a variety of political parties -- instead of just two -- is an excellent thing in a society. However, with "majority takes all" election systems, it's very difficult to raise an opposing consensus.
I'm running out of steam here, but the gist of the matter is that Canada needs a new electoral system, one based on preferential or mixed/proportionality voting. If for no other reason than the Greens -- who deserve far better than they got.
I do hope Andy Telegdi gets some time in to tend his garden.
* The Bloc Quebecois is concentrated in Quebec, of course. They're not, and never will be, a nationally viable party, although they will certainly continue to strongly represent francophone interests in Parliament for decades.
