When I handed my toddler Emile my completed ballot to gleefully stuff into the box a few weeks back, I had no reason to think our NDP vote would be anything but a throwaway.
For exactly half my life I'd voted for Canada's traditional third party, and always with the resigned belief that the best I could hope was that this principled runt of a party might act as the ruling government's conscience.
The unintended byproduct of an NDP vote, however, was that it helped their ideological opposites to victory. That is simply what third (or fourth and fifth) parties do. They are spoilers. They not only don't stand a chance at winning, but inevitably hand power to their political rivals. Even strategically voting for your least-worst candidate does little other than increase cynicism and decrease turnout.
This time around, the NDP moved one rung up the ladder to form the official Opposition. In doing so they split enough votes with the Liberals, who became the third-party spoiler, to award a minority of Canadians a majority Conservative government over the clearly voted wishes of 60 per cent of the population. The much-vaunted NDP surge single-handedly gave Stephen Harper his legislative stranglehold by helping him win 23 new seats despite increasing his popular vote by only two per cent.
Even in the U.S., the occasional third-party candidate causes supporters to vote against their own interests. Ralph Nader voters may have honestly believed there was no difference between "Gush and Bore" during the 2000 U.S. election, but his Green Party's futile campaign took just enough Democrat votes to get George W. elected.
In hindsight, it would be hard to argue that Nobel-winning enviro warrior Al Gore would have taken America down the same post-9/11 path as G-Dub, even if we assume the attacks would've happened under the watch of a president whose dad hadn't stationed U.S. troops in the Saudi Arabian holy land.
It happens to the right, too. Ross Perot's quixotic campaign boosted Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992 while the Reform Party's rise the following year reduced the then-ruling Progressive Conservatives to two seats, despite 16 per cent of the vote, handing majority power to the Liberals until the two right-wing parties finally merged.
Multi-party systems either keep third parties in perpetual third place, result in minority governments falling like dominos or create coalitions that give disproportionate influence to niche interests like Israel's tiny ultra-orthodox parties who hold the peace process hostage.
Prime Minister Harper, an admirer of all things American, also desires a two-party system because he thinks that he can win a battle of right vs. left -- or capitalism vs. socialism, as his ad writers will no doubt put it -- now that the NDP have supplanted the Liberals. But he's only guaranteed a win when his rivals are splitting the center-left vote. The benefit of a two-party system is that every few years, voters tend to give the other side a go.
When Harper's majority is sworn in next week, he will proceed to rule like he has a mandate. But he does not. Leaving aside his 39.6 per cent popular vote, the margin of
victory in the 14 most closely contested conservative races that produced this majority was about 6,200 votes. Combined.
A recent recount in Toronto's Etobicoke Centre riding saw conservative MP Ted Opitz squeak by with a 26-vote lead in our first past the post system, although the NDP candidate garnered about 7,700 votes.
There are solutions to the spoiler situation. Proportional representation would give smaller party votes electoral value rather than produce the opposite of the voter's intent. But moving beyond a winner-take-all system would first require the majority willingly give its power to small minorities. Ain't gonna happen.
The more likely scenario would see the Liberals absorbed into the NDP under the leadership of Jack Layton. Canadians, especially left-wingers, may be wary of adopting a U.S.-style two-party system -- but for all its faults at least we could go to the polls and actually get the government the majority voted for.
As the system stands now, when Emile is old enough to ask, I'll have to admit that this is not what democracy looks like.
vote splitting - Vancouver Sun
How vote-splitting gave the Tories Ontario – and a majority - The ...
for better to have minority coalitions ----the dictator does not get a free hand and force half the country down a path it does not want to go.
The percentage who voted for either the Liberals or the Conservatives (including PC Alliance and Reform). Trend is down over most of the 30 year period. Overall a loss of about 1/3 of their support.
2008 37.58
2006 43.03
2004 40.41
2000 50.33
1997 51.36
1993 53.86
1988 56.43
1984 58.76
1980 53.22
1979 57.53
The NDP and the “left” clearly don’t have a problem but I still believe Proportional Reresentation is the way to go. Corporate parties (Liberals and Conservatives variations) may not have a place in my voting habits but before they lose it all maybe we should accept a proportion representaion voting system over FPTP before the right wing loses their representation completely. Even they deserve a say, as does everyone.
I’m sure we all know the rough totals of the 2011 election to know that the trend continues.
2008 37.58
2006 43.03
2004 40.41
2000 50.33
1997 51.36
1993 53.86
1988 56.43
1984 58.76
1980 53.22
1979 57.53
The NDP and the "left" clearly doesn't have a problem but I still believe PR is the way to go. Corporate parties (Liberals and Conservatives variations) may not have a place in my voting habits but before they lose it all maybe we should accept a Proportion Representaion voting system before the right wing loses their representation completely. Even they deserve a say as does everyone.
As others have stated, it basically comes down to the political system favoring geographic concentration of votes. I don't see any reason to think that those Toronto suburbs will always vote Conservative (unlike, say, most of Western Canada) but I do hope that either we get a Liberal-NDP merger OR a resurgent Liberal party that can steal more conservative votes. Oddly enough it might be better for the NDP to have a really conservative Liberal party - provided it has a popular leader and can split conservative votes - than a merger. Of course the best of all worlds would be PR - no need to worry about the ultra-Orthodox bloc ruining the peace process in Canada! - which would allow people to vote their true preferences and avoid this damned strategic voting.
What you advance is an absolute necessity. There is no doubt, that the majority in Canada support a centre left value system.
To Harper and the Conservatives credit, they understood the need to consolidate forces. At this time; in the history of Canadian politics, it becomes encumbent on the NDP and Liberals to forego egos and to join forces. Otherwise, guys sit on your hands and watch the Conservatives govern for many years and the Canada we know gradually change to reflect the vision of the former Reform and Alliance member.
Hope your article and others like it get the ball rolling/!
Snerd
Well I have news. Majorities based on less than 50% of the popular vote are the rule in multi-party systems, not the exception. The last time the Liberals receiverd 50% of the popular vote was in 1953.
Apparently Ostroff is now psychic. But wasn't it the Liberals who brought up high-ranking Democrats to speak at their convention a few years ago?
Certainly, the recent election seems to show some success to this strategy, but it also seems predicated on the idea of Quebec continuing to vote for the Bloc Quebecois. As I outlined in another comment, this is the shakiest pillar of this strategy and could ultimately have the opposite effect.
Harper is not capable of extinguishing the Liberals. Only the Liberals can do that.
You also assume that the Liberals and the NDP are close to each other in ideology and therefore any vote for one is taken from the other. When in actuality it is the Cons and Lib that are closer in ideology. The "left" won this election in a way. Taking seats from the right of centre Libs and the extreme-right Cons.
You're on to something at the end. Proportional Representation is the way to go. Any other type of voting system should be put in place at the soonest possible time and then edited as we go. We don't need to pick the perfect system of PR. Trying to do so will fail everytime and leave us with FPTP again, like what happened in Ontario.
We need more representation not less. Assuming 2 choices will cover everyones opinion is naive at best.
While we're at it the US needs a type of PR so third and forth party votes aren't garbage or worse. But thinking the US, already so divided by the 2 party system will approve PR is me being naive now.
http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200211
Unlike Stephen Harper, I don't think the right will win more frequently in a straight up battle with the left and I also don't think the Conservatives are going to be able to hold their new alliance together if they drift too far right. Moreover, if the NDP do form the next government, we're finally going to have the conversation that this country really needs: proportional representation and vote reform. The country is rapidly getting to the point where some sort of vote reform is going to be essential. Given Canadians' new found willingness to start talking about the Constitution again, this might be the time to have the debate.
With Quebec back in play though, I'd say that strategy is looking a lot riskier for the Conservatives in the long term (although finally getting his coveted majority is probably compensating a lot for any worries on that score right now). The Conservatives also themselves opened the door to this in another way too: they were essentially a new political party, having all but shed all of the institutional knowledge of the old Tories. Since it didn't turn out especially horrible, Canadians are probably a lot more likely to turn to another political party that has never held government to replace them.
Besides now that Harper has a majority, because Iggy was lame and the media fell pray to the Conservative spin, we now have a government that intends to turn Canada upside down. Look what Harper is going to do with an elected Senate. Look what he's doing to party funding, the Supreme Court will soon mirror the U.S. one. Corporate media will become more and more the voice of Canada as Harper goes after the CBC. The Tar Sands will keep expanding.
If I were you I wouldn't be too happy with the NDP success because it's a progressive loss for at least the next 5 years and this is definitely not the time to have a reactionary party running the country.
Blaming Jack Layton for wanting to take his party to government and win the most seats is futile. Do we blame Michael Ignatieff for wanting the same thing? Of course not. All political parties are ultimately aiming for the same thing and really that's a narrative that's not going to win many votes. Indeed, the belief by both Ignatieff and Duceppe, that they were the only choices for those opposed to the Conservatives is one of the factors that led to their collapse.
The real blame lies with our outmoded voting system that allows the creation of a majority government on 40% of the vote, on a system that rewards "micro-targeting," on a system that operates on pluralities and thin margins. All progressive voters in Canada need to understand this more than anything else: If we want long term power in this country again, we need to change our voting system. This needs to be priority one for all progressives.