Electoral reform likelihood increases with 2019 election results

One of the worst aspects of FPTP is that it greatly exacerbates Canada's regional divisions and Canada's pathological regional tribalism. FPTP makes it seem like everyone in places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and most rural areas, vote Conservative. FPTP also makes it seem like almost everyone in the central areas of cities like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg vote Liberal. I think these election results will increase Canada's regional division and that alone makes a good argument for electoral reform. Under PR NDP'ers, Liberals, and Greens, would be elected in significant numbers in places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and rural Canada. Conservatives would also be elected in greater numbers in areas such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. This greater diversity would likely make it more likely for political parties and other political actors to find consensus and compromise.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Ask Canadians if they think the party that wins the most seats should win. Ask Canadians if they are okay with parties being forced to form coalitions to govern. 

These seem like nonsensical questions to ask Canadians or anyone else. Who thinks parties should be forced to form coalitions to govern? Why should a party that wins the most seats "win" if it can't obtain support from the majority of seats?

I do not think that Canadians know how to answer the coalitions question or even what a real coalition looks like.

I do not think most Canadians can be asked a question like whether the winner should be the party with the most seats becuase they are clueless about how parliament works.

ETA: adjusted quote to reflect the edited quote as I cross posted this while JKR was making changes -- I  appreciate that the editing makes it a bit clearer.

Therefore saying most Canadians think parties should gain seats based on the popular vote is meaningless. It doesn't mean they want or will vote for PR once they understand what they are being asked to support. 

PR does have drawbacks as well as benefits. By refusing to admit drawbacks exist the movement fails to persuade. 

KarlL wrote:

Lord Palmerston reportedly described it thusly,“Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it".

LOL. This goes into my permanent file of witty quotes, along with stuff from Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, and so on.

Just dare the Liberals to work with the Conservatives to avoid keeping their own promises.

Electoral reform position of the NDP has to go on the shelf. Make the Liberals keep the promise on it that they made. Let them even deliver on th preferential ballot.

Don't ask for a single new thing. The Liberals have already supplied many, many asks on things they previously promised and did not deliver. Canadians will respond extremely well to NDP demands that the Liberals keep promises with nothing new added. Some Liberals will feel a great deal of discomfort standing to oppose this position.

The communications strategy is simple, easy to understand and share and you could fight an election on it.

This is exactly how political communications can be done well. Simple messge. And any opposition form the Liberals is a trap for them.

The Liberals outdid the NDP on promises and advertising of those promises in 2015. Chickens coming home to roost would be NDP say now do what you said you would do. No need to do more. then the NDP look very reasonable and the debate is over a Liberal lie and not on policy -- exactly where you want it.

Pondering wrote:

I think some of those demands are still too high. It isn't about what the Liberals promised before it is about what Canadians most support. The pipeline demand is a no go. The Liberals and Conservatives are 100% committed. Only the courts and protesters can stop it now. 

Tax on wealth was a big winner so I would push hard on that. Normally I don't think pushing on indigenous issues is a big winner but we are shamed on the world stage in not providing equivalent funds for education, and not ensuring clean water and basic living standards. I think most Canadians were shamed by Trudeau appealing the decision on restitution for children removed from their families and communities. 

It does not matter what the majority support in many respects.

1) On the matter of principles - if the NDP cannot stand on the most important ones it has no purpose in existing. I do not care how much shame Canada has. This is about doing what is right. The NDP will struggle to get my vote nevermind a Liberal-NDP switcher if they do not make that a condition.

I pissed off people here in 2015 when I said this: I hate the Liberals but if they keep all their promises to Indiginous peoples they get my vote in 2019. I would have kept my promise if they kept theirs. I am prepared to vote against the NDP if they falter in support to Indigenous people on the key promises made to them. Singh made a big deal about clean water. I will oppose the NDP at every step if Singh stops fighting for this. I actually do not think that will happen but you have my word here that it would.

2) Tax on wealth was not a big winner. It was the right thing to do but it only got 24 seats and under 16% of the vote. It can only stay on as the means for the Liberals to pay for promises they made that they pretend are now unaffordable. From an NDP position this tax is not something the NDP ever promoted as a goal anyway but as a means to do other things the other parties say cannot be afforded.

3) There is no demand too high if the Liberals already asked for it. This is why I did not say kill the pipeline. Liberals never promised that and it would be too high. But the social license was a promise they made. This is not my position as many here know: I object to the blackmail Indigenous communities face when offered a piece of the pipeline pie when basic needs that are already owed to them are not being met. But the fact is the NDP has to simplify its message and demands. Restricting them to previous Liberal promises sets up the debate that the NDP need now.

The NDP lack the resources to sell any policy at the moment and they lack the political power to push them. The NDP does have the power to push policy proposals the Liberals already sold and broke promises on.

To package Liberal broken promises as the NDP demand would solve the need to have a simple message, the need to force the debate where it benefits the NDP, the need to proclaim that the NDP is being realistic, and completely corner the Liberals into a debate that harms them.

melovesproles wrote:

When Trudeau says he is giving an olive branch to "Western Canada'  by ramming through a pipeline that coastal BC opposes, a response is needed by the party that represents coastal BC. Right now that is the NDP and the Greens. If the NDP fails to stand up for the BC coast, expect the Greens to destroy them in those ridings in the next election. There would be no point voting for the NDP on Vancouver Island if they don't get this.

I do not think that this is at all a contradiction.

I expect the NDP to do this.

I also think this is within the list of the broken promises and concept of social license.

melovesproles wrote:

When Trudeau says he is giving an olive branch to "Western Canada'  by ramming through a pipeline that coastal BC opposes, a response is needed by the party that represents coastal BC. Right now that is the NDP and the Greens. If the NDP fails to stand up for the BC coast, expect the Greens to destroy them in those ridings in the next election. There would be no point voting for the NDP on Vancouver Island if they don't get this.

That is exactly right. However I don't see the need for much parliamentary debate on the issue given it mostly at this stage comes under Cabinet prerogative, except for the courts. The pipeline will not be built if people delay it either in the courts or in the street because the longer it goes on the worse the numbers look as a viable project.

Yesterday I made the mistake of listening to the CBC and other news outlets that were going on and on about appeasing "Western Canada" and thinking where the fuck do I live if its not Western Canada. I live in an interesting place because the Comox Valley has always had many people who work trades away and live here. Westjet has great flights for oil patch workers to get here. One of the new parts of my historic Village is sarcastically called Little Alberta.

There is a poll out by Angus Reid which seems to show that popular support for PR has increased rather dramatically since 2016. It also appears across all parties. The Cons in particular seem to have gotten religion since they finished first in popular vote, but second in seats. Interesting, but not likely to lead to any actual change.

The electoral reform issue is why the Liberals are more likely to work with the BQ than the NDP on a case-by-case basis.  The BQ is the only smaller party which benefits from FPTP, due to their support being concentrated in one area.  Under any imaginable model of electoral reform or pr, the BQ's parliamentary strength would be significantly reduced, barring an actual large-scale increase in popular support.  

brookmere wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The Cons in particular seem to have gotten religion since they finished first in popular vote, but second in seats.

The Conservative Party itself is as staunchly opposed to PR as it ever was, and for good reason. They are fundamentally at odds with 2/3 of the electorate, as opposed to the Liberals who have some common cause with smaller parties and the chance to win over some of their supporters. PR would shut the Cons out of power for good.

I don't see any mention by AR of the actual poll question, which is important in an issue like this. Conservative supporters may simply have been expressing the view that their party should have won more seats than the Liberals. AR also claims that JT promised to bring in proportional representation, which is not true. He promised to end FPTP and there are other options than PR.

If it had been pointed out that a Liberal-NDP-Green combination has gotten more votes than Conservative parties in the last 10 elections going back to 1984, I'm certain you would have gotten a very different answer.