Does the coalition represent the majority?

[Oleg Bach]

The people are the government.....surprise! Politics is theatre of the ego. From here on in Canada will be what you make it - God speed and good luck - love to all... We have discovered that we did not want to be politicals so we employed and deployed them...our public servants have come home empty handed - If you want something done right do it yourself. The power vacume is full - Particiapate and assist...WHAT? You were expecting our political guys and girls to take care of buisness - they are all lawyers for god's sake - Lawyers are not smart enough to run a nation - you are - you INSTRUCT COUNCIL! Not vise versa - this crisis is the fault of all Canadians - time to take responsiblity and respond - apparently the ones we hired are non-responsive.

[ironstone]

The most vocal supporters of the coalition claim that it represents the majority of Canadians.This is quite a stretch to say the least.So if I understand this line of reasoning,during the Chretien years when he won three straight elections with a majority of seats,he could have or should have been brought down by coalition of the opposition parties?As far as I can recall,his percentage of the vote was around the 40-43 % range,and using left-wing logic he did not truly represent a majority of Canadians.And what did the Conservatives get,something like 37-38%?Not a huge difference if you honestly look at it.

I also seem to recall during the Chretien years lot's of protesting from ALL of the opposition parties against the Liberal record.Admittedly,Harper needs to loosen his grip on his team since the Conservatives have more than their fair share of talented MP's.He should allow them to shine,it's clear to all they can more than hold their own against the opposition.Now that I think of it,Chretien was basically a one man show as well.Why did he not face the same criticism as Harper has been facing?Spare me on the over rated Liberal record please.They benefitted enormously from policies initiated by the Mulroney government,namely free trade and the GST.Both,need I remind you,policies vehemently opposed by the Liberals when they were in opposition.

[-VMG-]

Majority of seats in the house is not the same as the majority/minority of the popular vote.

Liberals had a majority of seats... same with the conservatives in the 80s... where as now conservatives do not hold the majority of seats in the house.

It's not the best system but it's what we have to work with. Other systems have their flaws as well.

and also technically it does represent the majority... it's just that there are several parties in the mix... if we didn't have partisan politics there wouldn't be such a big deal about it.

Edited December 4, 2008 by -VMG-

[Martin Chriton]

The most vocal supporters of the coalition claim that it represents the majority of Canadians.This is quite a stretch to say the least.So if I understand this line of reasoning,during the Chretien years when he won three straight elections with a majority of seats,he could have or should have been brought down by coalition of the opposition parties?As far as I can recall,his percentage of the vote was around the 40-43 % range,and using left-wing logic he did not truly represent a majority of Canadians.And what did the Conservatives get,something like 37-38%?Not a huge difference if you honestly look at it.

I also seem to recall during the Chretien years lot's of protesting from ALL of the opposition parties against the Liberal record.Admittedly,Harper needs to loosen his grip on his team since the Conservatives have more than their fair share of talented MP's.He should allow them to shine,it's clear to all they can more than hold their own against the opposition.Now that I think of it,Chretien was basically a one man show as well.Why did he not face the same criticism as Harper has been facing?Spare me on the over rated Liberal record please.They benefitted enormously from policies initiated by the Mulroney government,namely free trade and the GST.Both,need I remind you,policies vehemently opposed by the Liberals when they were in opposition.

Chretien got a majority with 38% of the popular vote in '98 IIRC. Harper had what, 37% last election? He was close. Very close.

[eyeball]

Chretien got a majority with 38% of the popular vote in '98 IIRC. Harper had what, 37% last election? He was close. Very close.

He was also nearly just as far from a true majority as Chretien. These are heady exciting times for us proportionalists.

[August1991]

He was also nearly just as far from a true majority as Chretien. These are heady exciting times for us proportionalists.

What those in favour of PR fail to realize is that people will change their choices if we had such a system in place. IOW, you are taking the voting patterns under the current system and blindly transposing them to a PR system and believe the same numbers will apply since people will vote the same way. Life doesn't work that way. People change their behaviour when circumstances change. Life is not a zero sum game.

If, before the last election, there had been a hint that the Liberals and NDP would sign an agreement in which there would be a cabinet including NDP members, you can be certain that some voters would have changed their choices. As it is, Dion has already set a precedent that future Liberal leaders will have trouble denying.

----

Moreover, PR doesn't solve the basic problem that a single ballot makes no marginal difference in the outcome of a wide scale vote. When you buy a Big Mac, your choice makes a small change to the world around you. A vote in an election has no similar effect. This is a hard fact that you and many others can't seem to grasp, eyeball. PR does not solve this basic problem.

Edited December 5, 2008 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

Chretien won his majority by winning all 100 or so seats in Ontario.....that's why the West hates the Liberals - they are rightly regarded as an Ontario and big city party. Nothing has really changed except the right is now united - as it used to be.

[August1991]

Chnretien won his majority by winning all 100 or so seats in Ontario.....that's why the West hates the Liberals - they are rightly regarded as an Ontario and big city party. Nothing has really changed except the right is now united - as it used to be.

It appears to be a regional divide and that's how Harper played it by noting the Bloc support.

I have a sneaking suspicion (as my mother would say) that ideology has undone this coalition project. Most English Canadians do not want the NDP in government and in Quebec, the PQ only succeeds when it presents a practical face.

This coalition was born in regionalism but it failed in ideology. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the NDP (and leftist Bloc) was the problem rather than central Canada. How else to explain Ontario's rejection of this coalition project? Many Quebecers reject it too.

Canadians appreciate the opinions of people like Layton and Duceppe but they do not want to let such people have control of the wheel of government.

[capricorn]

Canadians appreciate the opinions of people like Layton and Duceppe but they do not want to let such people have control of the wheel of government.

Very true. The notion spooks Canadians. That's probably why support for the Conservatives increased dramatically as seen in today's polls.

[eyeball]

What those in favour of PR fail to realize is that people will change their choices if we had such a system in place.

Yes, that's the freaking point. Right now as many people vote against something as for anything, its no wonder we get such retarded representation.

IOW, you are taking the voting patterns under the current system and blindly transposing them to a PR system and believe the same numbers will apply since people will vote the same way. Life doesn't work that way. People change their behaviour when circumstances change. Life is not a zero sum game.

No I'm taking the numbers everyone under the current system can clearly see and doubting the suggestion that this coalition is somehow unrepresentative or undemocratic.

If, before the last election, there had been a hint that the Liberals and NDP would sign an agreement in which there would be a cabinet including NDP members, you can be certain that some voters would have changed their choices. As it is, Dion has already set a precedent that future Liberal leaders will have trouble denying.

No doubt but so what? In a PR system we'd be accustomed to this sort of horse trading and just take it in stride.

Moreover, PR doesn't solve the basic problem that a single ballot makes no marginal difference in the outcome of a wide scale vote. When you buy a Big Mac, your choice makes a small change to the world around you. A vote in an election has no similar effect. This is a hard fact that you and many others can't seem to grasp, eyeball. PR does not solve this basic problem.

This is something millions obviously know instinctively and its probably why they don't bother to vote. If voting is really that pointless, we might as well just live according to a technocracy that gets it's read of the public's will by plugging into Angus Reid's polls or something.

As far as I'm comcerned anything that shakes up our stagnating parliamentary system is a good thing. If PR is really as hopeless as you say then smaller sovereign regions likely represent the only solution to ensuring local voices aren't completely lost in the wilderness of a confederation. If there's a west want's out movement I'll probably be in. Once the precedent of separating is set we can always hive off Vancouver Island later. Like you say, once people get the hint that other options exist they'll make different choices.

The reaction to all this is really quite incredible isn't it? I had to laugh when reading about how flustered other nations were because of all our apparent instability. Heck if there's anything the world needs, its an example of how a country can break up peacefully. That right there might be the very best legacy that any misbegotten country could hope to leave.

[Keepitsimple]

The Coalition mouthpieces - namely Dion, Rae and Layton continue to spout that Coalition Governments are commonplace all over the world. While this is true, they are, as usual. being disingenuous. Modern countries with Coalition governments - Germany, Belgium, Finland, Italy, etc. - have Proportional Representation (rep-by-pop) electoral systems. Canada has a first past the post (FTTP) electoral system. Comparing Canada to other "Coalition" countries is therefore comparing apples and oranges. Coalition governments can occur, but are very rare in FTTP electoral systems. For a bit of background, here's a link to Wikipedia where you'll find some pros and cons of Coalition Governments........but don't be fooled by the three stooges.....Canada's FTTP Electoral System sets us far apart from the "commonplace" coalitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government

Edited December 9, 2008 by Charles Anthony
merged thread; old OP title: "Coalition Governments - Are they Common?, Only with Proportional Representation!"

[blueblood]

Why Canadian's want us to be like Europe is beyond me. That place is a joke, we have a much better show.

There you go smallc, even I can show a little patriotism.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[ToadBrother]

Formal coalitions in most governments that used first-past-the-post are very rare, save perhaps in situations like WWII, when Britain had a national government (but that's an extreme example, Britain was on the edge of survival). The problem in Canada is something similar (though not as extreme) as Belgium's current political woes; we have essentially lost meaningful federal parties, Just as troubling, we're seeing a much sharper divide between rural and urban Canada. In this situation, with the Bloc, it's much harder to form a majority. I think it's possible, but the Conservatives still have to overcome to some degree the Reform/Alliance years to convince a lot of urban Ontario voters to give them a shot. As for the Liberals, the trend is clear; this isn't going to be the sudden death of the PCs, but they're in decline.

A sensible thing to do would be for the NDP and Liberals to formally join together, a sort of "unite the left". But for all this brotherly love we've seen over the last week between Layton and Dion, these two parties actually detest each other, much more than either really dislikes the Tories. The NDP regards the Liberals as sellouts, while the Liberals regard the NDP as naive fanatics. That's why I think this Coalition is doomed, and already is in full retreat. As much as I loathe Harper, can you imagine where we'd be right now if the GG had dismissed the Conservatives and allowed the Coalition to form a government. Imagine the machinations and hidden agendas that would have to be suaved to keep it together. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[Oleg Bach]

This commonality that Jack and the boys expouse is like saying - look people...everyone in most of the world are poor and common - why can't we have that commoness here in Canada? Remove the common wealth that is created by the un-common and we will all be equal and eqaully poor...wonderful - This is the weak attempting to destroy the strong by swarming them like a cluster of rats. The individual ant that can see - that has good vision and supervision and insight is hated - they need that ant in order to find food and good judgement...they seek to destroy what keeps them alive - INTELLIGENCE.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[-VMG-]

You know why they have coalitions? because Proportional representation creates minority governments most of the time, unless one party can gain a ton of support from the public.

You have to look beyond a simple electoral system... i already stated it.... PR produces minority governments... hence they need coalitions to sustain some sort of order within their parliament. Nothing would get done if there was no coalitions...

Coalitions are simply long-term alliances within a minority government... the conservatives have to make temporary alliances all the time to get their bills passed.... or they can do what harper does and force them to vote for his bills by making them confidence votes.

The only difference between the current government and a coalition government is that now what was the opposition will be calling the shots... and since the Bloc is not part of the coalition they will be the balance... Which for many is scary because they are "seperatists" and want to destroy Canada according to the conservatives.

Please learn about political systems.

[blueblood]

Formal coalitions in most governments that used first-past-the-post are very rare, save perhaps in situations like WWII, when Britain had a national government (but that's an extreme example, Britain was on the edge of survival). The problem in Canada is something similar (though not as extreme) as Belgium's current political woes; we have essentially lost meaningful federal parties, Just as troubling, we're seeing a much sharper divide between rural and urban Canada. In this situation, with the Bloc, it's much harder to form a majority. I think it's possible, but the Conservatives still have to overcome to some degree the Reform/Alliance years to convince a lot of urban Ontario voters to give them a shot. As for the Liberals, the trend is clear; this isn't going to be the sudden death of the PCs, but they're in decline.

A sensible thing to do would be for the NDP and Liberals to formally join together, a sort of "unite the left". But for all this brotherly love we've seen over the last week between Layton and Dion, these two parties actually detest each other, much more than either really dislikes the Tories. The NDP regards the Liberals as sellouts, while the Liberals regard the NDP as naive fanatics. That's why I think this Coalition is doomed, and already is in full retreat. As much as I loathe Harper, can you imagine where we'd be right now if the GG had dismissed the Conservatives and allowed the Coalition to form a government. Imagine the machinations and hidden agendas that would have to be suaved to keep it together. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

How about the Liberals provide some more rural friendly initiatives and policies instead of poking the west in the eye all the time. Their timeout should hopefully cause them to realize that. No rural voters = no majority. The tories are already working on more urban friendly policies.

[Oleg Bach]

How about the Liberals provide some more rural friendly initiatives and policies instead of poking the west in the eye all the time. Their timeout should hopefully cause them to realize that. No rural voters = no majority. The tories are already working on more urban friendly policies.

Before the liberals do you any good turn you will have to offer your wife and children as payment..the west would rather starve than submit to this lose of real wealth and freedom.

[ToadBrother]

How about the Liberals provide some more rural friendly initiatives and policies instead of poking the west in the eye all the time. Their timeout should hopefully cause them to realize that. No rural voters = no majority. The tories are already working on more urban friendly policies.

I'm not sure what the Liberals could hope to do to get rural votes. They have no real history with rural Canada, and rural Canada certainly doesn't trust them. Let's face it, the Tories have more room to grow, even if they are deprived of most of Quebec. If anybody is going to form a majority government in the foreseeable, it will be the Conservatives, unless there's some major shakeup. The Liberals are really going to need to shake the Trudeau and Chretien years off of them, and that's where they'll regain their Quebec support.

[Smallc]

How about the Liberals provide some more rural friendly initiatives and policies instead of poking the west in the eye all the time.

The Liberals could give all of you $1M each and you will stil lsay that they were poking you in the eye and being unfriendly to rural people.

[ToadBrother]

Before the liberals do you any good turn you will have to offer your wife and children as payment..the west would rather starve than submit to this lose of real wealth and freedom.

The West is not some homogeneous entity. During a chunk of the 1990s, BC's economy was so much in the doghouse that we were recipients of equalization payments.

By the West, you really mean "Alberta and whoever else west of Ontario who is currently doing alright." I wonder how many British Columbians would be going "Yeah, we're with you Alberta" if our economy tanks again.

Edited December 6, 2008 by ToadBrother

[fellowtraveller]

Italy has had about 60 coalition governments since World War II, so they must be wonderful.

Our children are taught that anybody can grow up to be the leader of our country. Italy goes one step further and gives every adult their turn.

[Huston]

I'm not sure what the Liberals could hope to do to get rural votes. They have no real history with rural Canada, and rural Canada certainly doesn't trust them. Let's face it, the Tories have more room to grow, even if they are deprived of most of Quebec. If anybody is going to form a majority government in the foreseeable, it will be the Conservatives, unless there's some major shakeup. The Liberals are really going to need to shake the Trudeau and Chretien years off of them, and that's where they'll regain their Quebec support.

The thing is, is that the conservatives destroy rural areas just as much as Liberal do. It is either corporate hegemony with the conservative, or the academic hegemony of the liberals. Both sides are for cities (that are only possible because of corporations) and destroying of individual freedom by homogenizing agriculture, health, and education. Why is it always democratic systems that create this boom, but massive busts in poverty and death. Maybe becaue it doesn't work, since individuals have no real choice. The corporations are just like religions, they take over, all in a manner that hides the true individuals seeking power. These are selfish individuals who think they are right, and try to socially engineer a world in their image. This has always been the problem with democracy. It has a tendecy to give too much power to the state that things cannot not be managed, and always affects the rural areas.

[cybercoma]

The Coalition mouthpieces - namely Dion, Rae and Layton continue to spout that Coalition Governments are commonplace all over the world. While this is true, they are, as usual. being disingenuous. Modern countries with Coalition governments - Germany, Belgium, Finland, Italy, etc. - have Proportional Representation (rep-by-pop) electoral systems. Canada has a first past the post (FTTP) electoral system. Comparing Canada to other "Coalition" countries is therefore comparing apples and oranges. Coalition governments can occur, but are very rare in FTTP electoral systems. For a bit of background, here's a link to Wikipedia where you'll find some pros and cons of Coalition Governments........but don't be fooled by the three stooges.....Canada's FTTP Electoral System sets us far apart from the "commonplace" coalitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government

Actually, this coalition highlights the problem with the FPTP electoral system. Someone correct my numbers if I'm wrong, but clearly there's a problem with how we elect people in Canada:

% of vote / % of seats

Liberals 26.24% / 25%

NDP 18.2% / 12%

Coalition 44.44% of vote / 37% of seats

CPC 37.63% of vote / 46.43% of seats

When I look at the numbers in that light, I have a hard time not supporting the coalition. That they need the Bloc's support to pass legislation only further serves to highlight the problems with our electoral system.

Edited December 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

You know why they have coalitions? because Proportional representation creates minority governments most of the time, unless one party can gain a ton of support from the public.

...PR produces minority governments...

FPTP systems produce disunity. Perhaps that's why there are only a handful of them left in the world.

Please learn about political systems.

Human nature might be a good topic too.

[cybercoma]

I can't believe I just offered credibility to the coalition. However, I think electoral reform is a significant issue that needs to be addressed regardless of the governing party(ies).