2019 Federal Election

[ijmorlan]

There is a great deal of talk about the spectre of a "coalition government." My view is that the Conservatives are just using it as part of their get out the vote right now, but they'll continue to push it if the PM does anything but promptly resign if the Tories win the most seats next week.

I think you're wrong on a couple of counts. "Scheer is keenly aware that if he doesn't win a majority no other party will support the Conservatives." That's not true, and recent history disproves it. It is very conceivable that the Tories could govern, supported by the Bloc on some issues and strategic abstaining by the NDP and Liberals. That isn't hard to imagine.

"If the Liberals fail to get a majority they will have no problem forming a government with the NDP (and the Greens if their seats are needed)." I think that's wrong, too. Not that it can't happen, or is impossible, but "no problem" is an understatement. There are plenty of risks to them. Trudeau will have lost after a single majority government, quite a feat, and there will be plenty of Liberals I'm sure questioning whether they will want to be seen as moving even further to the left.

Both your points are valid, of course.  I was just cutting to the chase of the final outcome.  Both major parties will pay a steep price if they want to govern with the help of another party. And they should.

Should? That makes no sense. In our system, any majority can govern. End of story. We do not elect governments, we elect representatives. If the MPs from odd-numbered ridings want to get together and form a government, they can do that. How is it supposed to work for a minority to govern, anyway, in the presence of a unified majority opposition? The opposition can propose and pass whatever they want while defeating anything the government proposes if they don’t like it.

I do grant that there is probably sufficient ignorance among the population that it may be possible to make the dishonest accusation of undemocratic government to stick against a coalition, but that doesn’t mean it should be that way. This isn’t just my assessment by the way — as I suggested above, there are fundamental (and very simple) mathematical reasons why simply “party with the most MPs” can’t be the rule.

[jgsz]

Yes, they should, and you're right that they will. No matter which party winds up governing in a minority situation, the other will claim that they are somehow undermining democracy in doing so, and score some points in doing so. But I really do think that the "We won most seats, we should govern" argument resonates sufficiently well with many Canadians that it is essentially true, and the Liberals will not push for anything else should they lose the seat count.

"We won most seats, we should govern" argument resonates sufficiently well with many Canadians that it is essentially true,

... until the first non-confidence vote that they would likely lose and, a) we have another election or b) the governor general asks another party to form government.

[MidTowner]

Both your points are valid, of course.  I was just cutting to the chase of the final outcome.  Both major parties will pay a steep price if they want to govern with the help of another party. And they should.

Should? That makes no sense. In our system, any majority can govern. End of story. We do not elect governments, we elect representatives. If the MPs from odd-numbered ridings want to get together and form a government, they can do that. How is it supposed to work for a minority to govern, anyway, in the presence of a unified majority opposition? The opposition can propose and pass whatever they want while defeating anything the government proposes if they don’t like it.

I do grant that there is probably sufficient ignorance among the population that it may be possible to make the dishonest accusation of undemocratic government to stick against a coalition, but that doesn’t mean it should be that way. This isn’t just my assessment by the way — as I suggested above, there are fundamental (and very simple) mathematical reasons why simply “party with the most MPs” can’t be the rule.

"Both major parties will pay a steep price if they want to govern with the help of another party [without having won the most seats]."

I'm not sure it's right to describe it as ignorance on the part of voters. In part, it is, because we simply encounter the situation so infrequently. But I do think the general sense is "this party won the most seats, its platform was most acceptable to the most voters, so it's incumbent on the other parties to try to find a way to work with them." That's not always going to be possible, of course, you're right about that.

Your arguments are sound, but they're academic. If the Liberals (say) fail to win a plurality of seats, but try to work with other parties to govern regardless, the argument will be that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for an unknown platform consisting of Liberal and others' policies. That will resonate with many Canadians.

[MidTowner]

"We won most seats, we should govern" argument resonates sufficiently well with many Canadians that it is essentially true,

... until the first non-confidence vote that they would likely lose and, a) we have another election or b) the governor general asks another party to form government.

My point is that I expect they would win such a confidence vote, because no one wants to go back to the polls (not voters, and not the parties), and I don't think the Liberals probably will want to govern without a plurality of seats, even if they could, because voters could very well eventually punish them for doing it.

[danbrotherston]

My point is that I expect they would win such a confidence vote, because no one wants to go back to the polls (not voters, and not the parties), and I don't think the Liberals probably will want to govern without a plurality of seats, even if they could, because voters could very well eventually punish them for doing it.

A plurality (the most seats) will not necessarily win a confidence vote which requires a majority.

But the point is taken, I have very little belief in the intelligence of the average voter.

[jgsz]

My point is that I expect they would win such a confidence vote, because no one wants to go back to the polls (not voters, and not the parties), and I don't think the Liberals probably will want to govern without a plurality of seats, even if they could, because voters could very well eventually punish them for doing it.

It would be foolish to call a non-confidence vote if they didn't think they could unseat the government.  As for punishing political parties and leaders, that has, unfortunately, become a new blood sport in Canadian politics regardless of what they do.  For example, I didn't vote for Kathleen Wynne or Justin Trudeau but the visceral hatred for them by some voters is/was unwarranted.  It's not healthy in a democracy.

[MidTowner]

My point is that I expect they would win such a confidence vote, because no one wants to go back to the polls (not voters, and not the parties), and I don't think the Liberals probably will want to govern without a plurality of seats, even if they could, because voters could very well eventually punish them for doing it.

A plurality (the most seats) will not necessarily win a confidence vote which requires a majority.

But the point is taken, I have very little belief in the intelligence of the average voter.

No, of course a plurality will not necessarily win a confidence vote. If all 338 MPs show up, and all vote against every motion put forward by every other party, the party with a plurality fails on the throne speech. But I believe that a plurality will be given the support of the House (either explicitly or tacictly by some portion of one or more parties not showing up or abstaining). And that is because many or most voters believe that the party with the plurality should govern.

You might disagree with that belief, but I don't think it's because voters are not intelligent, just that they see things differently than you.

Edit to add: How many Liberal voters do you suppose are ABC voters? How many Liberal voters would actually prefer a Conservative government to a Liberal government which makes concessions to the NDP? Many, I would guess, the most common type of swing voter being a Conservative/Liberal one.

[danbrotherston]

A plurality (the most seats) will not necessarily win a confidence vote which requires a majority.

But the point is taken, I have very little belief in the intelligence of the average voter.

No, of course a plurality will not necessarily win a confidence vote. If all 338 MPs show up, and all vote against every motion put forward by every other party, the party with a plurality fails on the throne speech. But I believe that a plurality will be given the support of the House (either explicitly or tacictly by some portion of one or more parties not showing up or abstaining). And that is because many or most voters believe that the party with the plurality should govern.

You might disagree with that belief, but I don't think it's because voters are not intelligent, just that they see things differently than you.

Edit to add: How many Liberal voters do you suppose are ABC voters? How many Liberal voters would actually prefer a Conservative government to a Liberal government which makes concessions to the NDP? Many, I would guess, the most common type of swing voter being a Conservative/Liberal one.

I wasn't sure which word I should use instead of intelligence. I honestly believe the average voter doesn't understand how our government (or many of the things they will be vocally outspoken on) actually work.  And that is what I meant.

[plam]

You're right that there's precedent. There is also precedent in BC for the narrow loser of the seat count to govern with a third party. So anything is really possible.

The CBC poll tracker currently projects the very interesting situation of an extremely hung parliament: 130 for each of the two main parties, 38 for each of the NDP and Bloc, and two for the Green. Whoever governs would need the support of more than one other smaller party. The party whence the Speaker is drawn would also matter in this situation.

If Bernier won his seat, and there was one or more independent successful, it could be really interesting. Maybe someone or more than one person could be persuaded to cross the floor (remember David Emerson?).

Even more hung than the 1972 Parliament. Found this interesting piece on the CBC today.

https://www.cbc.ca/archives/canada-1972-...-1.5322669

[tomh009]

No, of course a plurality will not necessarily win a confidence vote. If all 338 MPs show up, and all vote against every motion put forward by every other party, the party with a plurality fails on the throne speech. But I believe that a plurality will be given the support of the House (either explicitly or tacictly by some portion of one or more parties not showing up or abstaining). And that is because many or most voters believe that the party with the plurality should govern.

You might disagree with that belief, but I don't think it's because voters are not intelligent, just that they see things differently than you.

I wasn't sure which word I should use instead of intelligence. I honestly believe the average voter doesn't understand how our government (or many of the things they will be vocally outspoken on) actually work.  And that is what I meant.

I think the correct statement here would be that most voters are not well-informed about the nuances of how our political system actually works.

In 1972, Trudeau Sr would have been able to (continue to) govern with the support of the NDP, even with the initial vote counts that had Stanfield's Tories ahead by a single seat. If the plurality is narrow enough, the other parties' support becomes the critical factor.

[ijmorlan]

I'm not sure it's right to describe it as ignorance on the part of voters. In part, it is, because we simply encounter the situation so infrequently. But I do think the general sense is "this party won the most seats, its platform was most acceptable to the most voters, so it's incumbent on the other parties to try to find a way to work with them." That's not always going to be possible, of course, you're right about that.

That general sense is wrong, and specifically in a way which is why PR gets so much discussion. If we had PR then the first part of the statement would be true. The second part would still be wrong, because usually the other parties have (and would still have under PR) more votes than the supposed winners. It’s weird to say that 55% of the MPs representing parties that took 65% of the vote should knuckle under and do whatever 45% of the MPs representing a party that took 35% of the vote want.

Your arguments are sound, but they're academic. If the Liberals (say) fail to win a plurality of seats, but try to work with other parties to govern regardless, the argument will be that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for an unknown platform consisting of Liberal and others' policies. That will resonate with many Canadians.

My argument was about the “should” somebody gave where they were saying that parties involved in a coalition should pay a political price. It is bizarre to suggest that doing what the system is designed to do, in an effort to form a government from parties elected by a majority of the votes instead of from a single party elected by less than a majority of the votes, “should” cost those parties politically.

[jgsz]

Yesterday the argument was made that if the Conservatives (or whoever) win the most seats they should be allowed to govern because that's what the people expect.  

Here's a good argument, with historical references, to debunk that theory.

No, the party with the most seats doesn't always govern

[ijmorlan]

Yesterday the argument was made that if the Conservatives (or whoever) win the most seats they should be allowed to govern because that's what the people expect.  

Here's a good argument, with historical references, to debunk that theory.

No, the party with the most seats doesn't always govern

Thanks for that link.

I just had an odd idea occur to me: what if the governor-general would only appoint a proposed prime minister who led a coalition of parties who attracted at least 50% of the vote? Food for thought. Although in the typical situation that currently leads to a majority government this would mean that they would have to appoint a minority coalition, which would be quite strange for reasons already discussed.

[plam]

Thanks for that link.

I just had an odd idea occur to me: what if the governor-general would only appoint a proposed prime minister who led a coalition of parties who attracted at least 50% of the vote? Food for thought. Although in the typical situation that currently leads to a majority government this would mean that they would have to appoint a minority coalition, which would be quite strange for reasons already discussed.

Operationalizing that seems kind of tricky. So you have to gain confidence of not a majority of the House but of the vote? What does that mean?

[MidTowner]

That general sense is wrong, and specifically in a way which is why PR gets so much discussion. If we had PR then the first part of the statement would be true. The second part would still be wrong, because usually the other parties have (and would still have under PR) more votes than the supposed winners. It’s weird to say that 55% of the MPs representing parties that took 65% of the vote should knuckle under and do whatever 45% of the MPs representing a party that took 35% of the vote want.

It's true that the party that won the most support is not necessarily the party that won the most seats. But usually it is. You can't really say that the general sense is wrong- we're talking about "should" statements. We can all agree that the Governor General gives first crack at gaining the confidence of the House to the PM (and that what Scheer is talking about when he talks about "conventions" is misleading or worse). That is what happens, legally.

Politically, I think in 2019, the Liberals won't try to form government if they do not win the most seats. Let's say that they are at 130 to the Tories' 134. I think that the Tories will be allowed to (try to) govern. I did say the opposition parties should "try" to work with the leading party (or maybe just be seen to be trying?), not "knuckle under." Obviously the party with the plurality should not be able to "govern as though they had a majority," as Joe Clark tried and failed to do.