Majority Parliament -- who benefits?

[Charles Anthony]

Canadians commonly have a reflex thinking that a majority government is the key to a successful Parliament. I wonder if that is so.

My question is derived from the thread: The Enigma of Quebec City, Clueless BQ

the bloc is in deep doo-doo now that Harper has shown he's willing to play ball on the issue of quebec/provincial rights.

The Bloc may certainly lose seats.

However, the Bloc has been at the fore-front of promoting provincial rights. Objectively, an outsider could say if it were not for the Bloc, Ottawa would only house big central governments.

The Bloc has cleverly made it so that no party can easily hold a majority without sweeping Ontario.

Is it to the advantage of individual Canadians for the federal government to hold a majority?

Who benefits from a majority federal government?

Who benefits from a minority federal government?

My opinion:

I am leaning towards a preference for federal gridlock. [The less the federal government actually does, the better we are for it.]

More importantly, I trust a minority government to be more cooperative and more successful at balancing out the demands of the entire country.

[MightyAC]

Sadly only a minority of Canadians benefit from majority governments, especially when a party is run from the PMO down instead of from the constituents up. Our electoral system rarely produces true majority governments, elected by the majority of voters. The typical majority government only receives 40% of the vote yet wins 60% of the seats and therefore has 100% of the power in Ottawa. . IMO, that is undemocratic, and quite frankly a complete joke. Like Tom Stoppard said “it's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting”. Any government that does not speak for 50% + 1 of Canadians should have to persuade other MPs to support a bill before it can be forced upon us.

So to answer the question I believe that under our flawed voting system the majority of Canada benefits from minority governments. Canadians can all thank the traitorous, separatists for doing their part to prevent false red and blue dictatorships. I can only hope that we elect enough consecutive minority governments that a federal leader finally lives up to promises of electoral reform.

[Charles Anthony]

Canadians can all thank the traitorous, separatists for doing their part to prevent false red and blue dictatorships.

No. Canadians can thank themselves.

I can only hope that we elect enough consecutive minority governments that a federal leader finally lives up to promises of electoral reform.

Unfortunately, it is still advantageous to each party to maintain a first-past-the-post electoral system.

extracted from The Achilles' Heel of the Federal Liberals ...or why the Tories might win a majority

If Harper were to actually by some misfortune win a majority government, probably the most stupid thing he could possibly do is shift further away from the centre than he is (governing from) now. That would probably guarantee he loses in the election after next.

Forgive me but saying "shift further away from the center" sounds magical. Somehow I do not think it is sufficient to describe politics in this way any more.

If I am wrong, we may as well describe politics in terms of secret potions. All we (as voters) have to do is choose the magician who offers the potion that tastes the best. All the magicians have to do is mix a little more of their secret sauce into the pot to please the average customer demand.

Strategically it makes sense for EVERY politician to attain and keep a majority government.

Furthermore, the tools available to a politician to gain power are the same whether a majority or a minority is the goal.

In other words, there is nothing a politician can do differently if his goal was only a minority government. Saying this:

Strategically, it would make more sense for him to try and keep a majority for at least two terms if we wants to actually meet any of his goals.

is empty. It belongs in the Politics column of a high school newspaper.

[kimmy]

I have been fairly pleased at how well this minority government has performed. I don't think it has been gridlock, and between using "the levers of power" to enact policy, and getting cooperation in the House to get key votes passed, I think the Conservatives have done quite well in their first 10 months in power.

I always scoff when I hear talk of how Canadians "choosing" a minority government. Last time I voted, there were a bunch of names on the ballot, and I got to choose one name. I didn't see an option for "minority parliament" anywhere on the ballot. I didn't get to consult with people in neighboring ridings to say "ok, we'll elect a Liberal if you guys elect a Tory and those guys elect a Dipper." No such arrangements took place, and the fact that things worked out as they did was a result of regionalized party support, not an en masse preference for a minority government.

-k

[mikedavid00]

My opinion:

I am leaning towards a preference for federal gridlock. [The less the federal government actually does, the better we are for it.]

More importantly, I trust a minority government to be more cooperative and more successful at balancing out the demands of the entire country.

I somewhat agree. Some predict that the future of parliment will always be in minority due to formations of new parties in the future.

I'm however not ready to agree fully that this is better for us. I don't like hearing about our gov't being toppled over every small budget during every issue. This creates instability with our own gov't which is the cornerstone of having a functioning nation.

Also suppose this.

Suppose 20 years from now. Suppose every region of Canada creates a party backed by a minority group htey get 4 seats each in the house. So we have Bloc (our first real minority based party), we get the Islamic Party of Canada (this is already in the works from what I here), we get the APC etc. etc.. Naturally, each minority party will want handouts from the gov't in form of tax payers money.

Thus to keep that minority gov't in power, it will have to give payouts or bend to keep all parties happy so it doesn't get toppled.

Thus, we loose function of the Parliment and we loose our political system.

What avoids this is an electoral college system and giveing the gov't far, far less powers then it already has.

[mikedavid00]

Sadly only a minority of Canadians benefit from majority governments, especially when a party is run from the PMO down instead of from the constituents up. Our electoral system rarely produces true majority governments, elected by the majority of voters. The typical majority government only receives 40% of the vote yet wins 60% of the seats and therefore has 100% of the power in Ottawa. . IMO, that is undemocratic

Bravo! I agree completely.

I fell that we need 100% voting cooperation and loose the seat idea. It might work well for city poltiics, but not in Canada as a whole. Also, large cities control a lot of the politics when most large cities have the same concerns. A farmers concern might be different and have much less representation in the house.

Again, make the feds way less powerful, bring everything back to the provinces, and let the poeple decide on issues.

Govern is here to govern, not dicatate or rule according to their own agenda.

[MightyAC]

The number of people voting does not alter the situation I described...those are percentages.

[mikedavid00]

The number of people voting does not alter the situation I described...those are percentages.

Yes I understand that.