In 2010-11 I was co-ordinator for the Catch 22 Campaign -- a national strategic voting campaign designed to try and defeat the Harper government in 2011 "from below" and raise awareness about the need for Canada to scrap its antiquated first-past-the-post voting system in favor of a democratic system in which all voters have equal and effective votes and a Parliament that proportionately reflects the views of the electorate. Proportional representation (PR)/equal votes is the path bringing Canada to the status of a representative democracy.
We weren't alone. Project Democracy, LeadNow, Swing 33, Shit Harper Did and other initiatives also recognized the need to defeat Harper and for game-changing reforms to Canada's voting system. Sadly, Harper won his "majority" government with about 40 per cent of the vote. Tragically, NDP leader Jack Layton was taken by cancer. Always a solid and consistent supporter of PR, Layton was able to articulate a perspective on PR that not only looked at the interests of the NDP but was also cognizant that supporters of other parties were also ripped off by winner-take-all politics. NDP (and Green Party) policy officially supports PR.
The Liberal Party of Canada was reduced to third-party status. One would think that such a humbling experience would open the party to new ideas -- i.e. democratic voting -- given that they are now on the receiving end of first-past-the-post under-representation on a national level. But alas, at their recent policy convention, they endorsed "lipstick on a pig" alternative voting which does nothing to represent "the losers."
In any case, for the most part, strategic voting from below (independant of the political parties, candidates and campaigns), was unable to deliver. While social democrats were elated by the NDP's record-breaking success in breaking the 100-seat mark and becoming the Official Opposition, we are stuck with Harper's unbridled power for at least the next 3 years. We are seeing the results.
Nathan Cullen, MP for Skeena and NDP leadership candidate has articulated a one-time strategy that would both defeat Harper and move forward on proportional representation. It could be described as "strategic voting from above" (co-operation of the opposition parties at the riding level). It's become a lightning rod for his campaign -- attracting both support and criticism.
Can Cullen's proposal work? Historian and political activist Stuart Parker has just produced a new study on this proposal. It was released by the Catch 22 Campaign yesterday. What follows is the Executive Summary with a link to the full study. I think that rabble.ca readers will find it interesting.
===========================================
Advertising
The Logistics of Cooperation:
A Study of Nathan Cullen’s Progressive Primaries Proposal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Click here to download the full report.)
Stuart Parker, a historian with 20 years of backroom political experience**, here takes Nathan Cullen's general proposal for opposition party co-operation in the 2015 federal election campaign and turns it into a practical roadmap.
1) Traditional opposition strategies are unlikely to beat the Harper Conservatives
- For reasons set out at length with evidence, opposition party mergers are not on the near horizon.
- Neither the NDP nor the Liberal Party is likely to completely eclipse the other in public support. Voting statistics and voter preference polling data demonstrate that go-it-alone strategies by those parties are unlikely to defeat the Harper Conservative government.
- In particular, in the May 2011 general election the NDP under Jack Layton attracted just 26 per cent of the popular vote outside Quebec. Since then Liberal popularity has revived somewhat. Neither party is likely to overwhelm the other -- and any incredible claim to be "the only practical alternative" is likely to backfire. The Liberal Party remains the strongest alternative party in Ontario where most national media organizations are headquartered, a significant reality which the. NDP cannot duck.
2) Efforts by non-party actors to game the electoral system with "strategic" or negative voting campaigns are futile
- The Toronto Star was unable in May 2011 to direct voters to Liberal or NDP candidates depending on which had a better chance to defeat the Conservative candidate...
- Project Democracy and Catch 22 Harper Conservatives, two overlapping Anyone-But-Conservative internet campaigns, were unable even to identify the best-positioned opposition candidate in more than 10 per cent of their targeted electoral districts. They had little discernible impact on voting outcomes.
3) The untested national option: Party-co-ordinated strategic voting
- There is strong precedent for effective party-directed vote pooling in British Columbia provincial politics and in major multi-party countries with w_inner-take-all voting systems.
- In Canada any co-operative or pooling strategy must be based on a shared promise by the political parties involved to implement proportional representation for subsequent federal elections. Without that there will be a sharp reduction in their collective public support, probably to the net advantage of the Conservative Party.
- Efficient vote retention and transfer could move 35 seats in Anglophone Canada from the Conservative Party to the three federalist opposition parties. Even with national party permission, Liberal, NDP or Green activists in swing ridings will be reluctant to participate actively in local primaries to nominate a single opposition candidate.
4) Further measures needed to oromote party co-operation, effective vote pooling and a change of government in 2015
- National party leaders and officials will need to advocate the "local primary" concept very actively to all riding associations in nationally designated target ridings.
- The national parties should agree to target no more than 60 ridings for vote pooling and "local primary" candidate selection.
- To minimize partisan conflict and enhance voter retention the "local primary" nominations should occur in a one-step process Opposition unity candidates should run under combined party labels.
- For maximum impact the three federalist opposition parties should consider opening the ABC alliance to the Bloc Quebecois and other small political parties.
**Stuart served as founder and chairman of the BC Green Party’s youth wing 1988-93, leader of the BC Green Party 1993-2000 and in a variety of provincial committee roles in the BC NDP 2001-04 including the Electoral Reform Good Government and Standing Committee on the Environment. Currently a postdoctoral fellow of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and former lecturer at Thompson Rivers University and the University of Toronto, Stuart’s previous professional career includes serving as a consultant for the BC NDP, Liberal Party of Canada and public and government relations firms, including Barlee, Geoghegan and Associates, Cadence Communications and National Public Relations. Since 1997, Stuart has been a leader in Canada’s electoral reform movement, serving as a director of Fair Voting BC, Fair Vote Canada, Fair Vote Ontario, the BC Electoral Change Coalition and the Toronto Democracy Initiative.
Click here to download the full report.
You can reach Stuart by email here - stuart@subversive.ca
The problem is policy. And that may not be much of a problem. The NDP has shown itself to be pragmatic. When Jack Layton wanted to do a deal with Stephan Dion, he simply abandoned the party's position on Afghanistan. The party no longer demanded Canadian troops be out of that war-torn country immediately. That could wait two years. No, if all you want is power, there's no problem. Now, there are those who say that stopping Harper is key because he is a menace to what remains of the social safety net and the like. Well, the more you look like the LIberals, the more you look like the Conservatives. Peggy Nash seems happy to let Quebec privatize medicare if it wants. So does the PM. And isn't the former NDP premier of Manitoba quiet content working for Stephen Harper in Washington, where as Canada's ambassador to the U.S, Doerr soldiers on as a special pleader for Canada's oil and gas industries? No, where there's a will there's a way.
This is a major issue that the NDP leadership and 'back room' does not want to come to grips with - cf. Rick Salutin's column in the Toronto Star Fri., Feb. 10. Peggy Nash, says Salutin, (I'm quoting him) said: "Cullen's plan would betray the democratic impulses of party members who could never truly feel at home elsewhere." Wow! Even a level head like Salutin admitted that he's "sympathetic to this basis for rejecting Cullen's gambit [sic], precisely because it's irrational, based on feelings of who you are and where you belong." Some (many?) naive NDPers are revelling in being the official opposition - they seem to enjoy taking tea as residents of Stornoway (speaking metaphorically). But that is nonsense and without concern for what it has and will continue to cost the country - Harper can do virtually whatever he wants, and the NDP has NO POWERAT ALL compared to what it had under a minority Cons government.
I wish those who are in la la land about this issue would wake up and smell the Harperites' brew. They are doing what they said they would. They have re-introduced bills that couldn't get through before, with nary a jot or titel of difference in wording - eg. (if you need some) the copyright Bill (was C32, is now C10 with no changes despite a ton of input/reaction); the Criminal Omnibus Bill (never mind the evidence to the contrary or the impact on provincial treasuries); the demolition of the Gun Registry Bill (with the added filip that they will have all the files DESTROYED and not allow any provincial government to have their region's data!), etc. And we are in for another 3 to 4 years of this crap. As far as I'm concerned, and I said this in a letter to the Star that was published in Dec., Jack Layton is mainly to blame imo; he could have and should have seen this as necessary. I know lots of actively involved Libs who were being stymied by their leadership (sound familliar?) and would have welcomed a nice low-key approach fron the NDP to cooperate re running candidates against each other - NOT a nerger - NOT a coalition - JUST STOP HARPER & Co. from acheiving an absolute majority. My G-d, he can now even (and has) cut off debate with alacrity!
I did an in-depth analysis of all Ontario results for the 2011 election, There were 22 ridings in which the total votes of the Cons was below the sum of the votes for the Libs and NDP. In 18 of those 22, the Libs were 2nd and in 4 the NDP came in 2nd. In 6, the Cons' pluarlity was LESS THAN 1,000 VOTES (over the Libs in 5 and the NDP in 1)! And in 3 more it was less than 1,900 votes (2 Libs and 1 NDP). Of the 22 seats, the Cons took 15 from those won by the Libs in the 2008 election and 1 from the NDP; 6 seats were already held by the Cons., who had won 3 of them with less than a 400 vote margin in 2008. Cutting to the chase, I was satisfied that with what Gary Shaul calls party-coordinated strategic voting (delineating which party would run most effectively against the Cons in certain ridings), in Ontario the Cons likely would have LOST 6 SEATS instead of having picked up 16! And remember that they only needed 12 more seats in the whole country than they had won in 2008 to get their absolute majority in 2011.
Bottom line of all this is that Cullen is absolutely correct in what he says. We MUST be strategic in our fight against the Harperites and the CRAP (Canadian Reform Alliance Party - as they almost called themselves :)) Let's be prepared for 2015. I like most of the proposal by Shaul - but I do object to including the Greens and the Bloc, especially the Bloc. The Greens are not especially relevant and will not make a difference in any riding except for at most 1 or 2. Strategically, the Bloc leaves us open to the same stupid but very effective (in terms of Canadians not understanding the nature of parliamentary democracy) criticism that was used by Harper & Co. against the post-2008-election agreement to form an NDP-Lib coalition that would be supported outside the cabinet by the Bloc. And besides that, they are after all a separatist party.
I really hope that either Cullen wins, or that Nash or Mulcair (whoever does win the leadership) adopts this strategy and has some serious talk with Rae and the Liberal leadership. FOLKS, WE MUST GET SERIOUS RIGHT NOW ABOUT HARPER!
One thing I didn't mention, as my post was already quite long, was what happened in 2008 in Central Nova. That's Peter MacKay's riding, the man who won the PC leadership promissing not to merge with the Canadian Alliance Party. But he did - well, at least they omitted the word "progressive" from their new name!
In 2008, Elizabeth May chose to run in this riding; she had run in London North-Centre in 2006, coming 2nd to the Lib by 3,440 votes. In 2008, Dione and the Libs chose not to put up a candidate against her in Central Nova. BUT Layton and the NDP did not agree to this strategy and ran a candidate. Despite it being deeply rooted and long-reigning MacKay family territory, Peter MacKay won by only 5,620 votes. The NDP candidate received 7,659 votes - in other words, with the right campaign (which May ran beautifully) she most likely would have beaten MacKay. Instead, the NDP candidate split the non-Con vote and scotched May's potential win. It was a dreadful mistake by Layton and the NDP leadership - they only had to follow suit and the 'traitor' MacKay would have been dumped forthwith!
Another example of the narrow minded and fearful attitude of Layton (and cohort) was his untoward strongly expressed denial to allow Elizabeth May to join the national televised debates in 2008. Only when a Lib MP crossed the floor (shifted seats?) and became the 1st Green Perty MP in the House did Layton withdraw his objections. So much for the "Democratic" in the NDP's name!
I will never forgive Jack for those very serious errors - despite the fact I mourn his loss to us - nor for his having so readily allowed Harper to win his absolute majority. It was unconscionably ignorant.
To note my own bone fides, I was the vp of an NDP riding association in s-w Ontario for many years and have been a CCF-NDPer ever since I went to high school in the 1950's in York South, which was represented in Ottawa by Joe Noseworthy and in Queen's Park by Donald MacDonald and then Stephen Lewis.
Nathan Cullen will be visiting babble - rabble.ca's discussion board - Thursday, February 16, 2:30 PST for a Q&A. If you have a burning question, you can pose it in advance here.
A very, very bad idea. Cullen's scheme would submerge the working class interest under even more layers of liberal opportunism and parliamentary cretinism.
We need to move in the opposite direction, fighting for socialist policies in the unions and the NDP, laying the basis for a Workers' Government to settle accounts with a rotten system, rather than shoring up that system by replacing Tweedle Harper with Tweedle Rae.
Want to explore this idea more with a multi-partisan panel? Join us this Thursday February 16 in Waterloo, Ontario:
Cooperate for Canada
Thursday February 16, 7 PM
Waterloo Inn
Exploring Why and How the Parties Should Work Together to Form a Government that Reflects a Shared Vision of the Majority, with a Commitment to Immediate Action on Proportional Representation
Featuring:
Liberal: John Deverell, Policy Director of the Pickering-Scarborough East federal Liberal Association
NDP: Jamey Heath, Nathan Cullen Campaign Manager, former Research and Communications Director to Jack Layton,
Green:: Katherine Acheson, Chair of the National Campaign Committee of the GPC
Leadnow: Matthew Carroll, Director of the Leadnow Campaign "Cooperate for Canada" leadnow.ca/cooperate
Speakers to be followed by Q+A and town hall style discussion
http://www.facebook.com/events/340761602634609/
Free event, no registration, everyone welcome. More info: lanickerson@b2b2c.ca
Glad to see someone taking a look at Cullen's plan. Doesn't look like the roccommendations entirely match up to his party, but he seems to be moving in the right direction. I'll certainly be voting for Nathan.
Respondng to Barry Weisleder: OK let's work towards those goals, but in the meantime Harper will wreck whatever has been acheived - he's doing that right now - and there won't be much left to organize. Stop him, then continue to aim for those goals. And you're so wrong about Harper and Rae being the same - that's just rhetoric!