« The Pope and the Terrorist: Two Misguided Beatifications (News, Switzerland)
Ultra Orthodox Paper Writes Women Out of OBL History **UPDATED** »
The Mushy Middle?
May 9th, 2011 | 7 responses
Those who are hailing the new “clarity” reflected in Monday’s Canadian election results should read Dan Gardner’s column in the Ottawa Citizen. Looking back at the demise of the British Liberal Party, Gardner writes:
Something similar is quite possible here. In a matchup between the Conservatives and NDP, particularly at a time when voter turnout is appallingly low, the electoral math may show that moving to the centre to grab some of the dwindling number of Liberal voters is no longer the smartest option. The more effective strategy may be to identify, engage, and energize the party’s base.
If the government and the opposition begin to define themselves in terms of their differences, the eventual result could be stalemated government. An example, writes Gardiner, is close at hand:
If that sounds impossible, look south. A mountain of research shows that Americans are overwhelmingly clustered in the political middle. Very simply, most Americans are moderate centrists. And yet, American politics is divided and polarized like never before because, in part, the political dynamics reward division and polarization.
Americans seem to have forgotten the strategic advice of the man who led the D-Day Invasion, kept his country out of Vietnam and Suez, and built the Interstate Highway System:
People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.
As what some see as an historic realignment begins to take shape in Ottawa — and before more people begin to write the obituary of the Liberal Party of Canada — they should contemplate both Gardner’s and Eisenhower’s counsel.
Canada’s Owen Gray grew up in Montreal, where he received a B. A. from Concordia University. After crossing the border and completing a Master’s degree at the University of North Carolina, he returned to Canada, married, raised a family and taught high school for 32 years. Now retired, he lives — with his wife and youngest son — on the northern shores of Lake Ontario. This post is cross posted from his blog.
7 Responses to “The Mushy Middle?”
To me, the main question is why a centrist party lasted so long. Like the US, representatives to the legislature are elected on a “first past the post” system. (Whomever gets the most votes win, no majority needed). This is known to favor a two party system.
However, unlike the US, an independent commission set up the districts. This may have prevent the parties from reinforcing partisanship by Gerrymandering.
Whatever the case, it seems that, like in the US, modern communications is serving to push the inevitable logic of “first past the post” and the two party system. The only solution I see to the resulting partisanship, gridlock, and politics of personal destruction is to change the system. For the US, I think instant run-off voting is a good way to go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
I think it would work for Canada, though they could also consider proportional representation (Since they have a parliamentary system, their system is not as dependent on being able to produce one winner in a district as the is the US system).
There has been a lot of talk about proportional representation in Canada over the last decade, David. Ontario had a referendum on the issue about six years ago.
Voters rejected the proposal. I suspect that declining voter turnout will once again bring the issue to the fore.
Historically, because Canada is such a diverse mixture of geography and culture, political parties have been centrist — a political attempt to find the median. It’s getting harder to do that.
David — apparently the UK will retain first-past-the-post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8499151/AV-referendum-Britain-overwhelmingly-votes-No.html
owengray:
I personally would recommend Instant Runoff voting (or Alternative Vote as it is referred to in the UK) if Canada were to, for some reason, decide they wanted to know my advice. As I mentioned, Canada, as a parliamentary system, could go to proportional representation (and I think it would address the problem highlighted in the article), but I do think IRV would help promote compromise a bit better.
DLS:
Yeah, I’m a bit amazed. Sure I think IRV is neat, but, more importantly, I think in the UK first-past-the-post is systematically distorting UK election results. I understand that is was associated with Nick Clegg who has become unpopular.
There is a lot of dissatisfaction in Canada with the first past the post system — particularly after the recent election.
Stephen Harper won 167 out of a total of 308 seats with 40% of the votes. But because another 40% of voters stayed home, in effect he won with the support of 24% of eligible voters.
Runoffs are not unusual in lots of other jurisdictions. Perhaps Canadians will take your advice, David.
Maybe it is just me, but it always strikes me that no matter which election system is used in a country, it is always the wrong one, if the party you didn’t vote for gets into power with a majority.
Am I unhappy that the Liberals were given a drubbing? No. Am I unhappy that the Bloc Quebecois was similarly turfed from power? No.
I have lived in Alberta, long a conservative stronghold and Ontario where they were not so popular. Now I live in the east coast and, this province went overwhelmingly for the Conservatives except for, you guessed it, the riding I live in which has gone NDP for the last 6 elections. Although some might argue my Conservative vote was wasted, I don’t feel like it was, even though my candidate lost by 13,000 votes. For me, as it has been since I first began to vote, it has always my choice to vote and I faithfully have. When the next election comes, if I haven’t cared for what took place under the Conservatives, I’ll change my vote, as will many, I am sure. Since I don’t know how to add links with this new system, I didn’t include any, although my post is mainly just my opinion such as it is.
Oldbull56 is indeed right that any one party loosing power is not a reason for changing a system. If it was just about the Liberals taking a drubbing, then it would just be a case that the Liberal’s need to find a way to appeal to more voters.
However, a system that produces results that don’t reflect the will of the electorate is a problem with the system. In both Canada and the UK, the first past the post system has had a real tendency to give absolute majorities to parties that have only won pluralities, allowing a minority to dictate policy as if they were the majority.
Also there is the concern that first-past-the-post systems work against center parties, tending to push you into a two party system where you have a “left” and a “right” party who then just attack each other without regard for much else. This is a problem in the US and is why I advocate a change for the US. I also think this is becoming a problem in Canada.