Election 2021! (Canada votes again...)

[kaysixteen]

Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

[Kron3007]

Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

Sort of, but there is always hope that they could gains steam and form government.  More importantly, or more immediately, in a minority parliament a smaller party can hold the balance of power and influence policy.  Many people give a lot of credit to the NDP for pushing universal healthcare through in a minority government, but they have never formed government on their own.

[marshwiggle]

Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

Sort of, but there is always hope that they could gains steam and form government.  More importantly, or more immediately, in a minority parliament a smaller party can hold the balance of power and influence policy.  Many people give a lot of credit to the NDP for pushing universal healthcare through in a minority government, but they have never formed government on their own.

Also, in the last few decades, the official opposition (party with 2nd most seats) has included

• NDP
• Reform
• Bloc Quebecois

In each of these cases, it has happened because either the Liberals or Conservatives had a big fall-off in support, typically after having become unpopular in power.

So even parties which have never formed the government can be quite influential under certain circumstances.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think the NDP will probably form the government at some point in my life, even under FPTP. Dissatisfaction with the Liberals runs pretty high in those of my generation and younger. Some were conned by Trudeau in 2015, and that hasn't helped. And as the climate crisis worsens and governments continue to fail to deliver anything, I think that dissatisfaction will hit critical mass. Could be a while, though.

But we'll see.

Then again, FPTP is also increasingly unpopular...

[Kron3007]

I think the NDP will probably form the government at some point in my life, even under FPTP. Dissatisfaction with the Liberals runs pretty high in those of my generation and younger. Some were conned by Trudeau in 2015, and that hasn't helped. And as the climate crisis worsens and governments continue to fail to deliver anything, I think that dissatisfaction will hit critical mass. Could be a while, though.

But we'll see.

Then again, FPTP is also increasingly unpopular...

I hope you are right.  It would be good to at least see how they do.

Trudeau has again mentio Ed electoral reform, but has rejected proportional representation outright.  I assume this is because it would be bad for the liberal party's future.  In contrast, ranked ballots could actually help them as they would be the second choice for a lot of NDP voters, so it would likely hurt the conservatives.  I think this would be a step in the right direction at least.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think he just chucked that out there to see if he could win back some of the 2015ers. Certainly, I don't expect any movement on that front until and unless they have a majority, and even then I expect it, too, will go to committee to die.

I'd like to see the per-vote subsidy reinstated, and a move towards full public funding of parties. But that's not on anyone's radar.

[Kron3007]

I think he just chucked that out there to see if he could win back some of the 2015ers. Certainly, I don't expect any movement on that front until and unless they have a majority, and even then I expect it, too, will go to committee to die.

I'd like to see the per-vote subsidy reinstated, and a move towards full public funding of parties. But that's not on anyone's radar.

Yeah, I am not confident.  The only chance I see is if they have done the math to determine that ranked ballots actually works well for them, which it might.

The issue with subsidies per vote is that it also favours the big parties. Give a little incentive to vote your conscience but is also flawed.  No perfect solution though...

[kaysixteen]

WRT the party with the 2d most seats being the 'Official Opposition' party-- what if any special rights or status does this confer?

[marshwiggle]

WRT the party with the 2d most seats being the 'Official Opposition' party-- what if any special rights or status does this confer?

Others can chime in but a few include:

• Extra administrative support (offices, staff, etc.)
• *Ability to ask questions in the House
• Official residence for the leader

*This one is important, because small parties aren't guaranteed opportunities to comment on government statements.

That's part of why their complete title is "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"; their recognized purpose is to question the government.

[traductio]

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

[marshwiggle]

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

[traductio]

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

[Kron3007]

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

They are progressive relative to the other conservative parties that are further right (previously the reform, now the PPC).  I always assumed it was to try gaining voters from the centre, which is pretty essential to actually form government, but could be wrong.

[Parasaurolophus]

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

The Conservative Party is the original party, and it was always split between the red- and blue-Tory wings, with the reds being more British-style (communitarian economic protectionists) and the blues being more American-style (socially conservative free-market types). In the early forties, some disaffected Tories published a declaration calling for free markets and conscription, but also full employment, subsidized housing, and medicare. They were also pro-union. They had some clout, and the subsequent party convention elected some guy who wasn't even a member to be the party leader, and he changed the name to the 'Progressive' Conservatives to mark their influence.

In terms of actual policy, though, I don't remember what their schtick was, apart from being pro-bilingualism (the old Conservative Party was assimilationist). By the '90s they'd embraced what we now call neo-liberalism, but they might have been more libertarian on the social front--I don't recall.

The Reform Party (/Canadian Alliance) was always basically just a prairie grievance ("Western alienation") party, and their grievances included atheists, French, gays, and universal healthcare.

[marshwiggle]

My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

They are progressive relative to the other conservative parties that are further right (previously the reform, now the PPC).  I always assumed it was to try gaining voters from the centre, which is pretty essential to actually form government, but could be wrong.

From Brittanica.com:

The Progressive Conservatives traced their roots to the informal groups of government supporters, or Tories, that operated in the nascent party system that existed in the century prior to the establishment of the country's confederation as the Dominion of Canada in 1867. The opposing groups of Tories and Reformers were factional and unstable until 1854, when a government of Reformers fell as a result of internal division. Thereafter, disciplined new parties were formed, and they have dominated Canadian politics ever since. The old Tories and other conservatives, including a majority of conservative French Canadians, joined with a group of moderate liberals to form the Liberal-Conservative Party under the leadership of John A. Macdonald; except for a period during and after World War I, the party kept this name until 1942, when it was renamed Progressive Conservative.

So I stand corrected. At any rate, the party was more moderate than the *Tories (I'd guess by the name that the "Reformers" were less conservative), and thus the name.


*(For people unfamiliar with the terms, the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada will still at times be referred to as "Tories" and "Grits" respectively; the latter term refers to the earlier name of "Clear Grits".)