Governing Without a Plurality of Seats

[ToadBrother]

This is a thought that's been on my mind quite a bit of late. What if we have a situation where all three parties are within say 20 or 25 seats of each other, where one party may have an absolute plurality, but it's really a very narrow minority of seats in the House.

Under the Westminster constitutions, the incumbent government has the right to attempt to continue to govern, even if it doesn't even achieve a plurality.

In other words, let us imagine a scenario where the Tories get 120 seats, the NDP say 121 and the Liberals 97 seats. It might be part of the Tories' plan that if they get that close, even if one of the others beats them to the actual plurality, that Stephen Harper would declare his intention to continue governing.

There has been some talk that if things are that close, and the old Westminster rule that the incumbent PM gets the first shot at forming a government, that the Tories might try to cling to power. They further would try to push the Throne Speech as far into the future as they could by not recalling Parliament until the New Year. The intent here being that the further from the election the Throne Speech is, the more likely the Governor General would be to call a new election if the Tory government couldn't gain Parliament's confidence on the Throne Speech. This would fit into the scheme of a long election campaign that would leave the NDP's and Liberals' coffers empty, and thus force them to accede to a Tory government while they tried to rebuild their finances.

While I don't think it's the most likely scenario, when the voters elect a hung parliament, the determination of who forms a government becomes a lot hazier. Look at the 2010 UK election. It took nearly a day before Gordon Brown threw up his hands and resigned, paving the way for the Tory-LibDem Coalition. One can well imagine that if things looked that tight, that the Tories might at least try to see if they could work with the Liberals, rather than just walking away and allowing the NDP to form a Liberal-supported minority.

[Big Guy]

Governing does not have to be confrontational. There are number of issues upon which two of the three parties would agree. That legislation passes and life goes on. It would be only when one party decides to try to pass legislation which the two others disagree would the legislation fail and perhaps the government fall.

Under those conditions, we would be governed by a more democratic and representative government than a majority government which was elected with less than 40% of the vote.

[The_Squid]

I suppose that your scenario could happen. However, the likely outcome of that scenario would be a NDP/Liberal coalition which would not leave any doubt as to who would form the government.

If the Conservatives and Liberals joined to form a coalition gov't, then all the power to them.

But trying to hold on to power with fewer seats is probably a less likely scenario than a coalition. And as you said, in U.K. it took a day to sort it out. That's not so bad...

[Keepitsimple]

That scenario provides a teeny-weeny glance of how coalitions work - or don't work, depending on your view.

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even IF Harper got a minority, the other parties could put forth a confidence vote, which Harper voted for to bring down Martin, and then the GG, would ask the other two parties if they could form a government and so that's why for the sake of getting rid of Harper, and the country, those two parties work together.

[ToadBrother]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even IF Harper got a minority, the other parties could put forth a confidence vote, which Harper voted for to bring down Martin, and then the GG, would ask the other two parties if they could form a government and so that's why for the sake of getting rid of Harper, and the country, those two parties work together.

The big debate that has been going on in some circles is if the Tories attempted to govern as a minority (whether with a plurality of seats or less than one of the other parties), would they hold off recalling Parliament. Strictly speaking, the 2015-16 budget has already been passed, so they wouldn't need to put a new one forth until sometime in the spring. The government has no desperate need of new supply until well after the New Year, unless it wants to significantly alter current supply legislation.

In that situation, the Tories could very well conceivably try to push recalling Parliament well into next year; January or February, or heck, maybe March. The more space they put between the election and the Speech from the Throne, the calculus goes, the more likely it is if the government is toppled that the Governor General would more likely seek to remedy the loss of confidence with a new election rather than seeking a new government from the current Parliament.

The reason I suggest this is as a possibility is because the Tories have a very large warchest, far larger than either the NDP or Liberals, and the long election would likely leave them with a lot more money than the other parties. If they push the Throne Speech well into next year, that means they would go into a new election well ahead of their opponents. The NDP and Liberals might very well view trying to pull the plug on a Tory minority in such a situation as being too grave a risk. They can't put themselves forward as a successor to the Governor General until the Tories have actually lost confidence, and in strictest terms, the Governor General has to ask one of them to form the government.

If we're talking a matter of a defeat after a matter of weeks after an election, there's no doubt the GG would invite someone else to form the government. But if we are talking three, four, five or maybe six months, then the GG could very well decide that this is a question better left to the voters to answer.

[ToadBrother]

I suppose that your scenario could happen. However, the likely outcome of that scenario would be a NDP/Liberal coalition which would not leave any doubt as to who would form the government.

If the Conservatives and Liberals joined to form a coalition gov't, then all the power to them.

But trying to hold on to power with fewer seats is probably a less likely scenario than a coalition. And as you said, in U.K. it took a day to sort it out. That's not so bad...

It only took a day because, at least according to Labour sources, Gordon Brown and his team believed that the Liberal Democrats were not bargaining in good faith, and further that even a Labour-LibDem coalition would require support from a veritable Frankenstein's monster of parliamentary support; SNP, Plaid Cymru and maybe even outliers like Sinn Fein or the Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland.

If the polls remain as they are, other parties like the Green and the Bloc Quebecois will win only a small handful of seats at best, so whoever tries to govern wouldn't be faced with a nightmarish group of parties to win the support of. It could very well be that in my seat count scenario above that the Liberals might be receiving offers from both the NDP and the Tories, if the Tories still seriously had the stomach for trying to hang on. Or the Tories could simply do as I suggest, push recalling Parliament until well after the New Year, and dare the opposition parties to take their chances on whether they get to form a government or have to win an election.

[Moonlight Graham]

Under the Westminster constitutions, the incumbent government has the right to attempt to continue to govern, even if it doesn't even achieve a plurality.

In other words, let us imagine a scenario where the Tories get 120 seats, the NDP say 121 and the Liberals 97 seats. It might be part of the Tories' plan that if they get that close, even if one of the others beats them to the actual plurality, that Stephen Harper would declare his intention to continue governing.

If any party, even the incumbent CPC, tried to govern without winning the most seats of any party, I don't think Canadians would stand for it. It would look like a cheap power-grab, and would sink support for the party trying to govern that way.

[ToadBrother]

If any party, even the incumbent CPC, tried to govern without winning the most seats of any party, I don't think Canadians would stand for it. It would look like a cheap power-grab, and would sink support for the party trying to govern that way.

I would agree, if the seat difference was significant. But let's imagine it isn't. Let's imagine that the NDP enjoy only one or two seats more than the Tories.

[ReeferMadness]

This isn't a foot race. If the CPC and the Liberals wanted to form a coalition and could convince the GG that they had the confidence of the house, that's perfectly valid under our system of governance.

That would make the CPC raving hypocrites, given that they accused the Liberals and NDP of staging a coup a few years ago, but CPC hypocrisy is the norm anyway.

[ToadBrother]

This isn't a foot race. If the CPC and the Liberals wanted to form a coalition and could convince the GG that they had the confidence of the house, that's perfectly valid under our system of governance.

That would make the CPC raving hypocrites, given that they accused the Liberals and NDP of staging a coup a few years ago, but CPC hypocrisy is the norm anyway.

Except that the Tories, by virtue of being the incumbent government, don't have to be asked by the Governor General to form a government. In the Westminster constitutional system, where there is a hung parliament, an incumbent government has first shot at holding on to power. It must, of course, demonstrate that it has the confidence of Parliament on the vote for the Speech from the Throne, but there has been some talk that a minority Tory government might very well try to push recalling Parliament to several months after the election, to maximize the likelihood that the Governor General would call a new election rather than asking someone else to form a government should the Tory minority fall on the Speech from the Throne. If the Tories still have a larger war chest than the NDP or Liberals, they would be in a much better position to fight an election early next year.

[ReeferMadness]

In that situation, the Tories could very well conceivably try to push recalling Parliament well into next year; January or February, or heck, maybe March. The more space they put between the election and the Speech from the Throne, the calculus goes, the more likely it is if the government is toppled that the Governor General would more likely seek to remedy the loss of confidence with a new election rather than seeking a new government from the current Parliament.

The reason I suggest this is as a possibility is because the Tories have a very large warchest, far larger than either the NDP or Liberals, and the long election would likely leave them with a lot more money than the other parties. If they push the Throne Speech well into next year, that means they would go into a new election well ahead of their opponents. The NDP and Liberals might very well view trying to pull the plug on a Tory minority in such a situation as being too grave a risk. They can't put themselves forward as a successor to the Governor General until the Tories have actually lost confidence, and in strictest terms, the Governor General has to ask one of them to form the government.

This is a perfectly feasible scenario and is exactly why we need PR and better rules on party donations.

Under FPTP, parties have a huge incentive to play political games because a few votes can make the difference between opposition status and forming a "majority" government when you have all the power.

[ReeferMadness]

Except that the Tories, by virtue of being the incumbent government, don't have to be asked by the Governor General to form a government. In the Westminster constitutional system, where there is a hung parliament, an incumbent government has first shot at holding on to power. It must, of course, demonstrate that it has the confidence of Parliament on the vote for the Speech from the Throne, but there has been some talk that a minority Tory government might very well try to push recalling Parliament to several months after the election, to maximize the likelihood that the Governor General would call a new election rather than asking someone else to form a government should the Tory minority fall on the Speech from the Throne. If the Tories still have a larger war chest than the NDP or Liberals, they would be in a much better position to fight an election early next year.

It's a game. And Harper plays the game very well. It's the only reason he's still in power.

[ToadBrother]

This is a perfectly feasible scenario and is exactly why we need PR and better rules on party donations.

Under FPTP, parties have a huge incentive to play political games because a few votes can make the difference between opposition status and forming a "majority" government when you have all the power.

The one thing PR voting would not do is reduce hung parliaments, and the kinds of behind-the-scenes horsetrading which would be involved in producing viable governments. Quite the opposite. Since almost every election would produce some sort of hung parliament, every election would end with a period of negotiation where the largest parties try to form coalitions by wooing smaller parties. The singular advantage of FPTP is that it tends more often than not to produce majorities, making election victories far clearer.

[ReeferMadness]

The one thing PR voting would not do is reduce hung parliaments, and the kinds of behind-the-scenes horsetrading which would be involved in producing viable governments. Quite the opposite. Since almost every election would produce some sort of hung parliament, every election would end with a period of negotiation where the largest parties try to form coalitions by wooing smaller parties. The singular advantage of FPTP is that it tends more often than not to produce majorities, making election victories far clearer.

You misunderstood my point.

Yes, PR forces parties to compromise and work together. That's how democracy should work.

What FPTP does is encourage the type of game playing that Harper has become famous for. Boutique tax credits, negative campaiging, voter suppression techniques, wedge politics. When it takes just a couple of percentage points to move a government from minority status to "majority" then the government has little incentive to work with other parties and lots of incentive to play games.

[ToadBrother]

You misunderstood my point.

Yes, PR forces parties to compromise and work together. That's how democracy should work.

What FPTP does is encourage the type of game playing that Harper has become famous for. Boutique tax credits, negative campaiging, voter suppression techniques, wedge politics. When it takes just a couple of percentage points to move a government from minority status to "majority" then the government has little incentive to work with other parties and lots of incentive to play games.

Coalition negotiations can hardly be called open affairs if countries like Germany are any example, and how would PR lead to an end of boutique tax credits?

[eyeball]

The one thing PR voting would not do is reduce hung parliaments, and the kinds of behind-the-scenes horsetrading which would be involved in producing viable governments.

PR horsetrading done behind the scenes will only poison the public's opinion of politics even more - it'll probably only result in hung Parliamentarians if the public is left out of it.

[eyeball]

Coalition negotiations can hardly be called open affairs if countries like Germany are any example, and how would PR lead to an end of boutique tax credits?

We could use public referenda to put an end to them.

[ReeferMadness]

Coalition negotiations can hardly be called open affairs if countries like Germany are any example, and how would PR lead to an end of boutique tax credits?

Boutique tax credits are just one of the many tactics that parties use to target relatively tiny numbers of voters. The reason is that FPTP elections hang on the tiny number of swing voters.

Under proportional systems, targeting a tiny number of voters will only get you a correspondingly tiny number of additional seats so there is much less incentive to use these tactics.

[ReeferMadness]

PR horsetrading done behind the scenes will only poison the public's opinion of politics even more - it'll probably only result in hung Parliamentarians if the public is left out of it.

So, how is the behind the scenes horsetrading any worse than the behind the scenes PMO meetings where all of the decision making is currently done?

I agree that transparency would be better but there is absolutely no reason to believe that PR will result in more backroom dealing than already goes on. The only difference is that the backroom dealing will be between parties than within the party.

[ToadBrother]

We could use public referenda to put an end to them.

So now you're advocating that the tax code be decided by public vote? And what would this referendum decide? Whether all tax credits are bad, or just ones you don't like.

[ToadBrother]

Boutique tax credits are just one of the many tactics that parties use to target relatively tiny numbers of voters. The reason is that FPTP elections hang on the tiny number of swing voters.

Under proportional systems, targeting a tiny number of voters will only get you a correspondingly tiny number of additional seats so there is much less incentive to use these tactics.

You do understand that PR voting will tend to create more parties, not less, and those parties will even more so vie for specific demographics, and the very best way to win over a key demographic is, you guessed it, targeted tax credits.

I'm all for electoral reform (although the form of PR the NDP is advocating is absolutely terrible in my mind, no MP should be able to sit without a specific geographic constituency), but that doesn't mean I think the sun will always shine and flowers will never lose their bloom if we move to a new voting system. There will still be targeted (ie. boutique) tax credits, there will still cash expended on key demographics, there will still be behind the scenes horsetrading as coalition partners try to impose open, and yes, secret conditions on each other. I think Parliament will become more responsive to the will of the voters, but the parties will still try to manipulate voters in all the ways we are familiar with, and maybe in ways we haven't seen yet.

[SpankyMcFarland]

PR won't solve the central Westminster problem, the shifting of power to the PMO. Ireland has STV which ensures that seats match votes well but it has exactly the same issue in its parliament with the executive that the UK, Canada and Australasia have.

Harper, brilliant Nixonian that he is, has made the issue far more obvious but he did not create it. The fight for reform is complicated by a feeling among the general public that federal politics is no longer of much importance.

Edited September 1, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ToadBrother]

PR won't solve the central Westminster problem, the shifting of power to the PMO. Ireland has STV which ensures that seats match votes well but it has exactly the same issue in its parliament with the executive that the UK, Canada and Australasia have.

Harper, brilliant Nixonian that he is, has made the issue far more obvious but he did not create it. The fight for reform is complicated by a feeling among the general public that federal politics is no longer of much importance.

The one thing PR will do is make majority governments far less likely. A PM in a minority or coalition government still wields immense political power, but he is still more constrained because he cannot rely upon retaining the confidence in his government for any measure. The power to command his own MPs cannot be guaranteed for coalition partners' MPs. It does tend to create a more consensus style of government, as you see in Germany.

What actually constrains Prime Ministers, and really leaders of any parliamentary party, is supposed to be their own caucuses. In the original Westminster tradition, caucuses wield enormous amounts of power, and, at least in the UK, factions within caucuses like the Tories' 1922 Committee are renowned for their rebellious nature. While the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom wields, in some way, even more power than the PMs of Canada or Australia (due to these two countries having entrenched constitutions with formalized divisions of powers and responsibilities), the British PM is often forced to modify positions based upon his own backbenchers sometimes rather public declarations of opposition.

In the UK a lot of that has to do with the fact that though party leaders are chosen largely the same way they are in Canada, the twin notions of caucus and cabinet confidence actually retains considerable meaning in Britain. Thatcher was brought down by her own cabinet, with a considerable amount of support for her removal by elements in the Tory caucus. It's hard to imagine such a thing happening in Canada, where the notions of caucus and cabinet confidence have been essentially replaced by a sort of hari kari system where a leader is basically given the powers to act unilaterally, with the provision that if he or she loses an election, they're expected to publicly commit political suicide on election night.

[blueblood]

If the election is as close as ur saying, harper is toast. Either immediately in a loss or soon after in a minority win. Given the latest economic numbers harper is in a lot of trouble. If the cpc tried to hold onto power as you say, they would be decimated at the polls the next go round, warchest or not. Either way harper should be looking at a new place to live very soon.

As chretien found out the hard way, elected leaders have an expiry date...