Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Joshua Ostroff

GET UPDATES FROM Joshua Ostroff
 

Party Down: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Two-Party System

Posted: 05/30/11 10:00 AM ET

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.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jabrwock
I'd ask for a demonstration, but my power of disbe
04:14 PM on 05/31/2011
Another alternative is run-off voting. You mark your ballots 1,2,3 in order of preference. When there is a clear winner, say 50% 1, you get it in one. If however, you don't (say you only get 36%), then the computer deletes the candidate with the least number of votes and instead counts their indicated "2nd choice" towards those who are left. Repeat until someone gets 50% 1.
02:07 PM on 05/31/2011
TWO PARTY SYSTEM ---------a series of dictatorships overseen by the party with the majority

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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:55 AM on 05/31/2011
Even though this benefits my type of politics I do believe eveyone has a say. But if they don’t, then at least in my life the “left” will provail.

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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:50 AM on 05/31/2011
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 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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doctor Nick
Hi, everybody!
10:28 PM on 05/30/2011
A point worth emphasizing is that while Harper only increased the popular vote share by 2%, it was a lot more in Ontario (5%). That was really the story of this election - Liberals bleeding support to Conservatives in suburban Toronto and Bloc losing most of their Quebec seats to the NDP. In many of those Ontario seats the conservatives had close to or over 50% of the votes, which means that a Liberal-NDP alliance would not have made a difference (especially since there is no guarantee all Liberal voters would vote for such a merged party instead of the conservatives).

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.
08:05 PM on 05/30/2011
Joshua,
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/!
photo
Snerdgronk
co(R)po(R)atoc(R)acy plutoc(R)acy
05:03 PM on 05/30/2011
Ironically, the NDP vote wasn't the throw away ... Ignatieff was!

Snerd
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:47 PM on 05/30/2011
Ostroff wants it both ways. He laments the fact that a 40% popular vote can result in a parliamentary majority, all the while decrying a two-party system.

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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:42 PM on 05/30/2011
"Prime Minister Harper, an admirer of all things American, also desires a two-party system"

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?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Hope
Occasionally quoted by Mainstream Media
06:24 PM on 05/30/2011
Actually it has been pretty well established that Harper's strategy and the current strategy of the Conservatives is based on the idea of extinguishing the Liberal party completely in favour of a new party becoming the alternative to the Conservatives. The basic idea is that in a straight up contest between a right wing and left wing party, that the right wing Conservatives will win more often and become the "natural governing party." I'm sure he's thrilled if other political parties become "spoilers" in this system, but that's really just a bonus.

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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:42 PM on 05/30/2011
The Liberals and NDP try to annihilate the Conservatives (and succeeded in 1993), the Conservatives try to return the favour. That's how politics works.

Harper is not capable of extinguishing the Liberals. Only the Liberals can do that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
03:38 PM on 05/30/2011
Politics is obsolete. And has been for quite some time. Too bad most people are unaware that we really don't need them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
02:19 PM on 05/30/2011
Instead of blaming the NDP for the Conservative majority, you ought to blame the Liberals. The Liberals came to depend on being the Only Alternative to the Tories, and eventually that wasn't enough.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:24 PM on 05/30/2011
2 party systems create a right vs wrong mentality. It fosters a system where no one works together, ever and sharply divides the country. 2 parties systems are by far the worst. No one is represented. When 2 parties are corrupt, like the Dems and Reps, there is literally nothing you can do to show them you're not happy without putting the worse party in power.

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.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:00 AM on 05/31/2011
Proportional Representation does not work. Countries which have implemented it grind to a halt since the needed coalitions break down time and again. Approval voting is the way to go.
http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200211
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesse Wright
01:02 PM on 05/30/2011
As a whole though, I have mixed feelings about both systems (two-party vs. more parties). I have long had to vote strategically to get a left of center party in charge but have seen the limitations of two-party system in the states that will cater to whoever is speaking the loudest (right now it is clearly the Tea Party) leaving certain political ideologies out of conversations.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Hope
Occasionally quoted by Mainstream Media
12:32 PM on 05/30/2011
This election I switched from Liberal to NDP after being a lifelong Liberal voter. For me, it came down to a decision of whether or not I was going to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for a party that actually represented my values. My values were always closer to the NDP but the Liberals kept the big, bad Conservatives out of power. But that kind of thinking is dead in the water in Canada's new political reality.

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.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesse Wright
01:00 PM on 05/30/2011
I was exactly the same with you. NDP has long been my choice of vote, but never the party that I actually voted for as I always had to vote strategically with the Libs to try and keep the Con power down. This year, when the NDP began to surge, I knew it was time for me to vote with them. I agree with you that I think Harper is wrong in thinking the Cons would win majority with a two-party system. It's clear that a higher amount of Canadians sit left of center (with the Libs and NDP getting over 48% alone this year). However, I don't think that Harper will be open to discussions of electoral reform and we might have to settle for the Libs giving in and courting the NDP (fingers crossed).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Hope
Occasionally quoted by Mainstream Media
02:38 PM on 05/30/2011
In my view, Stephen Harper's strategy on this was predicated on Quebec continuing its protest vote with the Bloc Quebecois. Under those conditions, the Conservatives could have become the default party of government, especially if the Liberals remained a third party spoiler fulfilling the same role as the NDP.

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.
02:27 PM on 05/30/2011
Jack Layton popularity has guaranteed us 10 years of Conservative rule in Canada. If he had worked with Martin we would have actually had a progressive agenda. Instead he has the opinion that we only need a progressive government some of the time. I want a progressive country, I don't want to regress every other election.

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Hope
Occasionally quoted by Mainstream Media
03:22 PM on 05/30/2011
At some point it becomes essential to vote on principle, rather than purely out of a perception of "least evil." The Liberals, a party that I long supported and admired, were not really a Progressive party, they tilted in whichever direction seemed the likeliest to get votes.

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.
12:18 PM on 05/30/2011
You make some good points. One minor quibble though. If you did give your toddler your ballot to deposit into the ballot box, you technically violated election rules. Your toddler is not legally old enough to cast that ballot. Don't you know that you are not supposed to give your ballot to anyone else to insert into the box?