The Opposition is LIVE!
Thanks to everyone who has made our launch a smashing success! Please feel free to share our url, twitter and facebook page around -- we appreciate every new reader we get.
Canada’s Single Member Problem
Canadian democracy is in shambles. Concerns about an unelected Senate, centralization of power in the hands of the Prime Minister (and away from parliament), Canada’s outdated first-past-the-post electoral system, and the post-charter judicialization of politics have all undermined contemporary notions of representative democracy. Unfortunately, many problems are too difficult to change: shifts in Prime Ministerial Power would require constitutional amendment – initiated by the PM himself; even when this problem is addressed, as Paul Martin did in his declaration of Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ in 2002, it resists change. The ‘judicialization of politics’ is arduously debated, especially in the academic realm; any proposed change would both put Canadians’ rights at risk and be political suicide for any politician ambitious enough to address the issue. Other representational issues are in fact today’s hot topics: Stephen Harper’s ‘Triple-E’ Senate is testament to that fact. However, one important facet of Canada’s ‘democratic deficit’ has been lost in the scramble. Indeed, Canada’s electoral system is akin to a thorn on Canada’s democratic rose. Moreover, because this thorn has not yet drawn blood, electoral reform has fallen to the wayside. This is not to say that electoral reform has never been debated – only that it has never been central to a national Canadian political agenda.
Adopting a mixture of American Federalism and British Westminster government in 1867, Canada has taken its electoral system for granted, and has not addressed whether it is appropriate given facets of Canadian society, such as its distinct regionalism. Indeed, Canada’s SMP system is unsuitable to Canadian society, if only for the disparity between democratic values held by Canadians and the political realities of Canada’s electoral system. The disparity here can be reduced to the difference between two terms: majority and plurality. Many Canadians would certainly be surprised to learn that a political party may win all 308 seats in parliament having received a small minority of the electorate’s votes! Theoretically, in most federal elections, parties may win each seat with only 34% of the vote share. This results from Canada’s ‘Single Member Plurality’ or ‘First-Past-the-Post’ electoral system. The SMP system divides the country into ridings – geographical segmentations of relatively equal population – which each are represented by a single member in Parliament. This member is elected by receiving the plurality of votes in a riding’s election, not a majority. In this way, Canada’s SMP system leaves electoral fortunes up to the number of parties which put forth a candidate in a given election.
Canadian regionalism further emphasizes the foibles of the SMP system. Canada’s electoral system rewards geographically and territorially concentrated support, thereby exacerbating territorially defined politics – by creating incentives for parties to play on those cleavages. This aspect of the system both undermines notions of Canadian democracy, and damages national unity. By rewarding those parties which concentrated, regional support and punishing small parties with widespread support (as they are rarely elected in concentrated ridings), the SMP system hurts Canadian democracy. It plainly distorts the representation of views held by populations of Canadians dispersed throughout the country, instead of concentrated regionally. Worse still, is that when parties win a majority of seats in one region but few in another, they are incentivised to cater to one region, thus weakening the government’s national unity.
Not only does regionalism exacerbate flaws of the SMP system, but the recent centralization of power in Canadian government does as well. I daresay that in Canada, power is vested in the minority! South of our border, the SMP system is somewhat more suitable. This is due to the fact that citizens may vote for the executive and judicial branches separately from those of the legislature, thus providing some legitimacy to their power; their two-party system for the most part ensures that one candidate receives a majority of the vote; moreover, the absence of hard party lines makes for a less powerful executive and legislative majority. However, in Canada, our fused executive/legislative ministerial government, combined with hard party lines puts enormous power in the hands of the ruling party in Parliament. Any party who achieves the majority of seats in Parliament in effect takes up the reigns of Canadian government – as bills are passed by a majority of parliamentarians, and all parliamentarians are in reality required to tow the party line.
Now, think back to the previous theoretical example of a Canadian political party winning all 308 seats with 34% of the vote. We must now take into consideration that Canadian political parties must only win 155 seats in Canada to rule – a majority of seats. Further, in recent elections voter participation in federal elections have been sitting at around 60%. Last, if we take into consideration that all electoral districts in Canada are not equal – they vary by a margin of 25% – this further aggravates the disparity. So, theoretically, a party could achieve only 8% of the total Canadian voting bloc (100% x .34 of the vote x 155/308 districts x .60 of the eligible voting population x .75 to account for differences in riding population), and in effect, govern the country unopposed. Certainly, Canadian democracy is in a perilous state if such a small minority of Canadians can gain rule over the majority! Canadian political realities make such a victory almost impossible; however, examples such as the 2000 federal election, in which the Liberal Party won the majority of seats with less than a majority of the popular vote highlight this problem.
The recent debates regarding electoral reform have risen in the context of Canada’s abysmal voter turnout in the second millennium. Indeed, those countries which have adopted proportional or semi-proportional electoral systems tend to have higher voter turnout than those who adhere to plurality systems – on average, 7% higher voter turnout. Critics accuse this relationship as being a dubious one, but it certainly cannot hurt Canada’s perilous trend of decreasing voter turnout, as swaths of Canadians avoid the polls on election day. Clearly something must be done.
Brought up time and again by those opposed to electoral reform, two central criticisms of a proportional electoral system are raised. First, that proportional systems fragment electoral outcomes – leading to unstable coalition governments. Yes, fragmentation may occur, yet this is not necessarily a negative outcome. For decades, Canada’s SMP system has tried to coalesce diverse interests into big tent parties; there is in fact no one majority which represents the electorate. Maybe what Canada does need is a more accurate representation in Parliament of the diversities among its population. Additionally, safeguards embedded within a reformed electoral system could significantly reduce fragmentation in the party system. Implementing minimum threshold percentages could reduce the appearance of small, extremist or single-issue parties; Mixed-Member Proportional systems also offer relief of these concerns. This MMP system has been adopted on varying levels by Germany, the UK and New Zealand, and involves having a portion of Parliamentarians proportionally elected through party lists, while others remain tied as single members to ridings or districts. Voters would in effect vote twice: first for the candidate which they think best represents their riding in Parliament, and second for the party list they prefer. In this way, the MMP system combats both the fragmentation issue and the criticism that proportional systems do away with direct accountability of parliamentarians to certain district populations.
With regard to those who argue that minority governments would be unstable, my response is thus: because electoral fortunes in a proportional electoral system are unlikely to see great change upon a forced election, parties would be encouraged to cooperate more efficiently, and the strict partisanship, so characteristic of Canadian politics today, would be eased.
The second concern which arises with proportional electoral systems is that proportional voting systems are complex – for both the government and the voter. These naysayers think too little of the competency of the Canadian voter. In fact, experiences from countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom or Germany do not provide evidence in support of this claim. Indeed, upon adoption, a period of voter adaptation would certainly take place, but there is no reason to believe that Canadians would have any more difficulty understanding a MMP electoral system than any other citizens. The same argument may be applied reforms to Elections Canada.
The SMP system plainly distorts the preferences of voters. In a democracy, the electoral system should attempt, wherever possible, to best represent the intentions of voters, and Canada’s electoral system fails to do so. The question which then comes to mind is: Is electoral reform even possible in Canada? For, the political party with the power to reform will no doubt have benefited from the peculiarities of Canada’s current SMP system. Although it seems unlikely, conventional wisdom would present evidence for the contrary: New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom at both national and sub-national levels have reformed their electoral system to more proportional models. Maybe change is possible? Recently, referenda have been brought to bear in provincial electorates regarding the introduction of the MMP system – most notably in Ontario and British Columbia. Both of these referenda did not pass – however, as noted above, turnout in these referenda were low, and the electorate were not well enough informed. Living in Ontario at the time, I witnessed firsthand the apathy which characterized this referendum. Not only is change to a MMP system a moderate reform, but it would accomplish myriad goals: making every vote count, strengthening national unity, and make government more representative of the population. Canadian democracy is flawed; the disparity between common beliefs in majoritarianism and the political reality of pluralities is assuredly large. It is about time we, as Canadians, do something about it.
Fowler: The Degradation of Mitt Romney
It should have been a walk in the park. Nine months ago I wrote on TheOpposition that, in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, “Romney has clung to a narrow but consistent lead for the past two years in public opinion polls. If nothing of note happens in the Republican primary, he should be able to piece victory together.” This has remained the underlying factor in the race for the past year, as various conservative challengers have risen to counter Romney, usually surpassing his steady 25% support, before flaming out and making way for the next. GOP challengers either refused the race or made such immediate clowns of themselves (Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and…I can’t remember the third one) that they essentially left the nomination with Romney’s name on it. However, it would be insane to say that “nothing of note” has happened in the race so far, since fears amongst the GOP establishment that the nomination fight will go all the way to the convention floor in Tampa have been growing despite Romney’s consistent lead in the delegate race. There are very few observers left who doubt that the general election will be between President Obama and Governor Romney, but this foregone conclusion comes with a caveat that was not apparent nine months ago.
Zimmerman: The NDP Leadership Race: What’s Left?
By the end of March 24th we’ll find out who is going to lead the New Democratic Party of Canada into the post-Layton age. New Democrats, having built themselves up from third (or fourth) party to the official opposition under Jack Layton’s leadership, are situated at a crucial point in not only their party’s history, but arguably in Canadian history as well. The Liberal Party of Canada, traditionally the party of power and occasional opposition status, has been beaten into a form of submission, now occupying the NDP’s more familiar place of third party status. The NDP may for the first time take power in the coming election. With the Harper Conservatives busy battling the unfolding Robocall scandal and losing the confidence of Canadian voters with each new piece of evidence brought forward, many see this as the NDP’s golden opportunity to finally govern. With Bob Rae’s generally strong leadership of the Liberals following the lackluster performances of Dion and Ignatieff nothing is quite so certain and many would argue that the result of March 24′s party vote will determine whether the NDP gets a leader who can defeat both Harper and Rae.
Let us start with the percieved frontrunner, Thomas Mulcair of the riding of Outremont. I recall back in 2007 when I had received word via cellphone from an NDP organizer at York University that Mulcair had won in a by-election on the New Democratic ticket, having defected from what is largely considered a right-leaning Quebec provincial government (and apparently having flirted with the notion of joining the Harper Conservatives). My NDP colleague at the time also stated that it would be likely that Thomas Mulcair would be the next leader of the NDP. Another NDPer I knew at the time was advocating Mulcair take over from Jack Layton and even went so far as to vote against Layton’s leadership vote at the then most current convention. In my opinion, someone who had to stop to think which party to join, particularly presented between two apparently diametrically opposed parties, the so-called Left-Wing NDP and the hard Right Harper Conservatives, should not be considered for the leadership of either party. Someone who operates in such a way clearly operates on self-interest and personal self-aggrandizement rather than authentic beliefs. Jack Layton always talked about the NDP
sticking to principles to differentiate the NDP from the Liberals. With a leader like Mulcair will that claim stick?
A website has surfaced recently entitled kNOw Mulcair that is run by anonymous members of the NDP who are concerned with his past stances. These include his actions as a Quebec Minister, including his contracting out of public sector jobs, the cutting of $103 million in student aid, among other un-progressive moves. One of the central criticisms he receives is his self-espoused ardent support for the state of Israel. I don’t want to get too wrapped up in the Middle-East right now, as I do that quite enough, particularly with regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I will say that his now famous 2008 line: “I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances” is beyond worrying. This line sounds like it could have come out of Jason Kenney’s mouth. Even supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week would never say that they support every Palestinian organization in all situations. No one in the movement, at least from my knowledge and experiences, supports Hamas or the sell-out Fateh organizations. Mulcair’s position is extreme compared to everyone but the Israel-Right-or-Wrong Conservatives under Harper. To finally see Harper’s Tories getting discredited for their own one-sided stances and scandals seems like a hollow victory for those on the Left when the NDP frontrunner has virtually the same positions when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Despite Liberal support for Israel I could not picture Bob Rae or even Michael Ignatieff saying something so irresponsible. Mulcair has since distanced himself from his past statements, invoking Jack Layton’s memory and maintaining that he supports the party’s 2-state solution policy. If this were the case I am not sure why he said he supported Israel in “all situations and all contexts” though since settlement building nullifies the possibility of a 2-state solution. It seems to me and many others that he is just saying this now in order to save face with the rank and file of the NDP which is largely sympathetic to the Palestinians. It is just talk and talk is cheap. Let me maintain the debate on the NDP leadership race though and leave the Middle-East for another day.
New Democrats on their way to vote in an Orange Cat.
On top of Mulcair’s irresponsible language and support for what is one of if not the most war-like nation on Earth, come the question of many of his backers. The NDP traditionally has been a party of the underdog, being the party of labour and the poor rather than business oriented parties like the Conservatives and the Liberals. As the party founder and father of universal healthcare always said, the NDP was the party for the mice run by the mice rather than by the two alternating parties of black cats and white cats. The party always got its support typically from below not above. When we see some of Thomas Mulcair’s donors are among Bay Street elites, including Peter Munk of Barrick Gold’s son Anthony Munk, it causes some concern. Barrick Gold has a terrible track record for environmental degradation and it causes one to question: What avowed environmentalist would take money from such a source? Why is Mulcair getting such support from such sources? This is new to the NDP. Could it be that certain corporate elites see the rising orange tide and are backing Mulcair so that there interests continue to be represented in Ottawa as opposed to the interests of the 99%? Is this the direction Canada’s Left-leaning party should really be heading to? For Bay Street backers it’s just business as usual and they are covering their asses as usual, making sure that whoever is in charge, their interests will be looked after. The party of mice may elect a cat, maybe an orange tabby cat this time. Mulcair’s bet may not pay off. He may shift the NDP to the center as he openly plans to do but it may make the party irrelevant despite the fact that his intentions are the exact opposite. If the electorate, many of whom are tired of politics as
usual, sees two virtually identical centrist parties they may opt for the one they are used to. Finally, does Mulcair and/or his supporters ever wonder if in this drive to bring the Center to the NDP that he may completely alienate the Left, that is, the “traditional base” of the NDP? We may have a Center divided between Liberals and New Democrats with no place for the Left to call its own in official partisan politics.
Upset by the focus on Mulcair another contender Paul Dewar of Ottawa has spoken out against the negativity. He uses the word “defame” to describe the criticism of Thomas Mulcair, although I fail to see the defamation. We have to remember the whole thing at the 2009 NDP Halifax Convention when people spoke of taking the ‘N’ (new) out of NDP. It seems we should be focused on maintaining the ‘D’ (democratic) in NDP. This is party democracy at its finest. We, the voters within the NDP, ought to scrutinize every candidate and have a long debate before deciding who should be the next leader. Dewar, to his credit, has taken a bottom-top approach to running the NDP. He talks of engaging people at the grassroots in communities, getting people engage in politics and making politics relevant to people’s everyday lives. This approach is completely lacking in the isolated Bubble of Ottawa where the government is typically tied to the will of capital rather than the people. Perhaps such an approach can make the NDP, and politics as a whole, relevant once more in an age where people are looking for answers beyond the official ballot box? Another theory also is that Dewar is telling everybody to keep the debate positive because he’s come under for his french, or lacktherof.
Next we come to Brian Topp. I remember early on in the race many people on the so-called more radical Left of the party saw Topp as the person to beat. Mulcair was considered an underdog at this point. Topp’s campaign has arguably gone under in the past few months though. Topp is seen as belonging to the bureaucracy and being primarily a behind-the-scenes man having won no riding of his own or had much experience as a public leader in the party. Topp has been on Mulcair’s case in debates asking the valid question of why Mulcair is so insistent on bringing the NDP to the center (or bringing the center to the NDP, same difference) when the NDP had gained the official opposition status by being the NDP rather than a party more akin to the centrist Liberals. Bravo Topp for bringing this up, but he isn’t fooling those who consider themselves as part of the Left. I mean, when we read about him praising the austerity measures of Papandreou. He’s received extensive criticism for this. The NDP Right-Wing Drift Watch discussion puts it in plain language. It’s truly flabbergasting to see someone speaking of hope and progressive solutions when he is praising the works of a leader with a 15% approval rating. In Greece the leader whose policies Mr. Topp praises is opposed by the majority of the population. Do we need solutions like austerity measures done by the NDP?
We all feel it now.
Romeo Saganash dropped out of the race so I wont go much into detail about him. He is a First Nations and the idea of a potential native Canadian Prime Minister was intriguing in itself, but of course there was much more to Saganash and his policies than just his heritage and identity. There was something interesting about Martin Singh too being a Sihk candidate, the first candidate for party leader and potentially Prime Minister (correct me if I am mistaken). Singh is a Canadian of European descent but converted to Sihkism. Aside from identity matters, both his pro-business wording and “God Bless Canada” speech finishes may have turned some off. His direct accusations of Brian Topp being a liar upset many within the party. Can you picture Paul Dewar jumping between them to stop the negativity? Some have theorized that Singh, who is widely seen as one of the less likely candidates to win, is doing Thomas Mulcair’s “dirty work”, acting like an attack dog in order for Mulcair’s campaign to appear more positive, but still cause havoc for Topp’s campaign.
Some claim Singh, expected to drop off early in the ballots, is doing the dirty work for Thomas Mulcair.
The race has two women who are playing large roles in the leadership race. Peggy Nash, Toronto Parkdale-High Park representative, has a strong labour background and ample union support. The labour credentials may lead labour-minded people within the NDP (um…would you believe there are many in the NDP?) to support her if scared off from Thomas Mulcair’s (and to some extent Topp’s) apparent Third-Wayism. Nash’s strong and open support for electoral reform is positive news for those interested in more “thinking outside the box” in regards to making democracy more directly relevant. It brings back memories to the early Jack Layton NDP years when proportional representation was one of his main stances. Nash is also more internationalists arguably, having been to many places in the world, including Palestine and Lebanon (although she never said she was an “ardent supporter” of anyone in “all circumstances” and “all situations”). Oh and she uses language from Occupy Wall Street: the 99% and the 1%. Hmmm…NDP tied to actual on-the-ground social justice movements?
Niki Ashton, partially due to her being the youngest (aged 29) although some see this as a sign that she is most connected to “our generation”, that is the one that is getting screwed right now., has been noted for her energy. Ashton has received much praise from some. She has much support from young New Democrats and some considered on the more Left edge of the party. She has also had beef with Mulcair’s campaign apparently for spreading rumours that she planned to drop out earlier in the race. Ashton and Nash are largely seen as the more left-leaning candidates, although it’s hard to say what the post-Layton political landscape will look like for the NDP. The days of the Harper Government are seeming to be numbered, but once more we can’t predict exactly what will happen here. The NDP is likely to play a large role in the coming in the future of this country, whether its as a force for real change or another disappointment (Rae?) is up in the air. What happens on March 24th will play a key role in how things play out.
Sometimes I wonder about the Liberals and if things had played out differently had they not elected Stephane Dion that fateful night back in 2006. Same with Michael Ignatieff’s coronation. What if they had gone straight to Rae who is doing ok now actually? This is particularly relevant in light of the Robocall scandal where he gets to play a leadership role as an opposition leader while a divided New Democratic Party turns to inner issues. Jack Layton once said at the end of a leadership debate (2008) to “take a deep breath and vote for us.” The NDP members can take a deep breath before March 24th. Will the NDP, no matter who ends up leading it, be one for those on “the Left” to feel justified in voting for? We’ll have to see. Some say yes, some say no, and many, like myself, say maybe.
Oh and Nathan Cullen’s also running!
Read here for his proposal!
Mackay: From Indifference to Activism
Joseph Kony, Ugandan guerrilla leader and founder of the Lord's Resistance Army, is subject of a growing movement known as KONY 2012.
For those few who have yet to see the video, the premise behind it is that the world must take action, immediately, to end the reign of Joseph Kony, a Ugandan guerrilla leader, whose organization, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA for short), seeks to kill, maim, rape, torture, and enslave Africans (specifically Ugandans in the video) in the name of God. As a video it is dangerously effective, and has gotten the attention that the organization behind the video, Invisible Children, clearly sought. Looking at this in a purely marketing sense, this video can be considered nothing short of a huge success, one that has led social media observers to point out that this may reshape social activism and finally galvanize the millions of internet users into action.
Paikin: On Iran, Canadian Leadership Needed
Laudably, the Government of Canada has unambiguously identified Iran as being a primary threat to international peace and security. Accordingly, Canada has adopted a series of sanctions against the Islamic Republic, including the invocation of the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA).
Despite these important moves, Canada’s stance on the Iranian file under the Harper government remains incomplete. Canada’s stance vis-à-vis Tehran focuses almost exclusively on the threat posed by the latter’s nuclear weapons program.
You have likely seen all the posters gracing the hallways of your university, if your student union is affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), for the past few months. The “National Day of Action” is today, and it will be a great, feel good moment fighting the good fight at Queen’s Park, forwarding the tuition revolution, and establishing solidarity with our fellow students from across the GTA. It’s an undertaking taken once a year; a ritualistic tradition with investments into it unmeasured, and a return on it nearly non-existent, for demands mediocre through all the wrong avenues towards change.
Uranowski: The Tea Party/Occupy Wall Street: The Musical
I come from a very musical family (buy my sister’s band’s EP: The Prime Minister of Cool Chicks) and musical theatre has always been a big part of my life. One of my earliest memories is seeing a production of Brigadoon at the high school my father taught music at. In high school I performed in Jesus Christ Superstar, You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown and Les Miserables, and at U of T I helped produce (and appeared in) my favourite musical of all time, Stephen Sondheim’s Into the Woods.
With my other obsession being politics I have been wanting to write about how two specific musicals, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson & Urinetown, should be watched by anyone trying to understand the Tea Party and Occupy movements in the United States. This evening I read an article on Fox News online that compared Newt Gingrich to President Andrew Jackson in a non-ironic, complimentary manner (whitewashing the fact that Newt Gingrich has never fought for his country and Andrew Jackson’s legacy of supporting slavery and wholesale slaughter of Native Americans.)
“At a time when global competition is growing and our crime rate is falling, it is smarter to invest in education than jails. – Dalton McGuinty
After two days of sessions on the economy, health care, foreign policy, the environment and evidence based policy, the 3200 delegates who attended the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2012 biennial convention arrived at Canada Hall to debate and vote on priority policy resolution.
That Sunday morning 77% of voting delegates courageously voted “Yes” to policy resolution 117. “Legalize and Regulate Marijuana.” Without hyperbole, I would argue that this has helped fundamentally transform the crime debate paradigm in Canada. Read more…
Glasman: Huntsman Enjoying Late Surge in NH
It is safe to say this was indeed a great weekend for Jon Huntsman. The former Utah Governor, emboldened by strong debate performances and a rise in his state-wide polling numbers, seems to have his message resonating with New Hampshire voters.
That message, “putting his country first”, spawned from a fateful moment during Sunday morning’s NBC/Facebook debate when Huntsman went off topic to address the criticisms made by Mitt Romney about the former accepting his Chinese Ambassadorship appointment from President Obama. “I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first” he said. He went on to state that “This nation is divided David because of attitudes like that”. The response was welcomed with a roar of applause from those in attendance. His campaign team was quick to pick up on the public approval, rolling out a new TV commercial entitled “country first” featuring the soundbite merely several hours later. Read more…
Uranowski: Canadian Politics Word(s) of the Year: 2011
2011 featured a federal election and provincial/territorial elections in Manitoba, Ontario, PEI, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the NWT. At the end of 2011, Canada now has 4 female premiers (up from 2 at the beginning of the year), the BQ have 4 seats in the HOC and the Liberals and NDP have interim leaders. It is impossible to summarize the year in one paragraph/blog post, so I have decided to highlight 5 words that paint a picture of the last 12 months in Canadian politics:
1. Contempt:
Though the Harper government wants to forget what precipitated the 2011 election, the catalyst for what the massive shift in Canadian politics that seems to have occurred this year, is the motion that held Prime Minister Harper and his government in contempt. Read more…
