MONTREAL—First the easy part: there is little doubt that an injection of electoral reform could improve the health of Canada’s federal politics.
Under a more proportional voting system, Canada’s federal parties and its future governments would not be national in name only and every vote, regardless of where it is cast, would count for something.
Today Quebec is mostly out of the governing loop in Parliament. But the political wheel will inevitably turn and when it does, current trends suggest that Alberta could once again find itself on the outside looking in.
As the last election demonstrated, Quebec is not essential to the crafting of a governing majority. But as long as Quebecers stick with federalist parties, it will also be even easier — mathematically speaking — to secure a majority without Alberta for the foreseeable future.
In a winner-take-all voting system, the path of least resistance encourages parties to focus on the regions where their prospects are most promising, at ultimate cost to the national fabric.
Yet as worthy as the cause of electoral reform may be, it does not justify turning the next federal election into a plebiscite on the issue.
In the wake of last month’s three byelections and in the face of renewed evidence of non-Conservative vote-splitting, the notion of an electoral pact between the federalist opposition parties has resurfaced.
To varying degrees the idea has promoters in all the parties concerned. Striking an electoral pact with the Liberals was the main plank of NDP House leader Nathan Cullen in his party’s recent leadership campaign, and MP Joyce Murray is carrying a torch of the same variety in the ongoing Liberal contest.
Green leader Elizabeth May has long been a proponent of electoral cooperation between her party, the NDP and the Liberals.
The definitive shape of that cooperation remains vague. Some are musing about piecemeal local arrangements. Others are promoting a more ambitious undertaking that could see the three parties run joint candidates in all Conservative-held ridings. My CBC At Issue co-panelist Andrew Coyne is promoting a one-time-only opposition pact designed to elect a government specifically mandated to reform the electoral system.
Set aside the technical difficulties attendant to rallying two out of every three riding associations behind a candidate bearing the banner of another party, and squaring the approach with Elections Canada.
Set aside also the challenge of selling voters on the rationale that the only way to arrive at more meaningful electoral choices in the future is to dramatically curtail their choices in the 2015 election.
Proponents of more cooperative arrangements between the parties that sit to the left of the Conservatives deserve credit for advancing a discussion that may eventually lead to serious electoral reform or more productive parliamentary arrangements. But too many of them are really only looking for a shortcut to beat the Conservatives without having to do the heavy lifting of seeking policy common ground with their opposition rivals.
In the absence of a joint comprehensive platform, the single-candidate approach amounts to asking voters to wear a blindfold as they craft a non-Conservative government.
Take just one issue among many: Between now and the next federal election, it is not farfetched to imagine that the Parti Québécois could secure a governing majority.
Under that scenario, the next federal mandate could feature another Quebec referendum.
With that in mind, and with a single opposition candidate of one stripe or other on offer on the ballot, would non-Conservative voters be electing a government that accepts — as the NDP does — a 50 per cent plus 1 vote to trigger the secession of a province? Or would they be opting for one that insists — as the Liberals do — that the clear majority required under the federal clarity act involves a higher threshold?
The reality is that — whether for a full term or only for a couple of years — the next federal government will need to cope with larger challenges than electoral reform and to do so with more than the limited mandate of a royal commission.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Chantal Hébert
Under a more proportional voting system, Canada’s federal parties and its future governments would not be national in name only and every vote, regardless of where it is cast, would count for something.
Today Quebec is mostly out of the governing loop in Parliament. But the political wheel will inevitably turn and when it does, current trends suggest that Alberta could once again find itself on the outside looking in.
As the last election demonstrated, Quebec is not essential to the crafting of a governing majority. But as long as Quebecers stick with federalist parties, it will also be even easier — mathematically speaking — to secure a majority without Alberta for the foreseeable future.
In a winner-take-all voting system, the path of least resistance encourages parties to focus on the regions where their prospects are most promising, at ultimate cost to the national fabric.
Yet as worthy as the cause of electoral reform may be, it does not justify turning the next federal election into a plebiscite on the issue.
In the wake of last month’s three byelections and in the face of renewed evidence of non-Conservative vote-splitting, the notion of an electoral pact between the federalist opposition parties has resurfaced.
To varying degrees the idea has promoters in all the parties concerned. Striking an electoral pact with the Liberals was the main plank of NDP House leader Nathan Cullen in his party’s recent leadership campaign, and MP Joyce Murray is carrying a torch of the same variety in the ongoing Liberal contest.
Green leader Elizabeth May has long been a proponent of electoral cooperation between her party, the NDP and the Liberals.
The definitive shape of that cooperation remains vague. Some are musing about piecemeal local arrangements. Others are promoting a more ambitious undertaking that could see the three parties run joint candidates in all Conservative-held ridings. My CBC At Issue co-panelist Andrew Coyne is promoting a one-time-only opposition pact designed to elect a government specifically mandated to reform the electoral system.
Set aside the technical difficulties attendant to rallying two out of every three riding associations behind a candidate bearing the banner of another party, and squaring the approach with Elections Canada.
Set aside also the challenge of selling voters on the rationale that the only way to arrive at more meaningful electoral choices in the future is to dramatically curtail their choices in the 2015 election.
Proponents of more cooperative arrangements between the parties that sit to the left of the Conservatives deserve credit for advancing a discussion that may eventually lead to serious electoral reform or more productive parliamentary arrangements. But too many of them are really only looking for a shortcut to beat the Conservatives without having to do the heavy lifting of seeking policy common ground with their opposition rivals.
In the absence of a joint comprehensive platform, the single-candidate approach amounts to asking voters to wear a blindfold as they craft a non-Conservative government.
Take just one issue among many: Between now and the next federal election, it is not farfetched to imagine that the Parti Québécois could secure a governing majority.
Under that scenario, the next federal mandate could feature another Quebec referendum.
With that in mind, and with a single opposition candidate of one stripe or other on offer on the ballot, would non-Conservative voters be electing a government that accepts — as the NDP does — a 50 per cent plus 1 vote to trigger the secession of a province? Or would they be opting for one that insists — as the Liberals do — that the clear majority required under the federal clarity act involves a higher threshold?
The reality is that — whether for a full term or only for a couple of years — the next federal government will need to cope with larger challenges than electoral reform and to do so with more than the limited mandate of a royal commission.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Chantal Hébert
No comments:
Post a Comment