Hopefully those five years will end, provided that Mr. Ignatieff is prepared to work with other parties. I expect the Conservative Party will once again fail to win a majority. The normal democratic response to such a result would be a coalition, rather than let Harper carry on as Ignatieff chose to do in January 2009. I hope.
"If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge." Corollary: If the Conservative Party wins the most seats but cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Ignatieff will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. Quite clear.
Now, how will he operate as leader withou a majority? "these are the rules that will guide me." Guide? "In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function." Best? But not only?
"The tradition in the Canadian system is the leader with the largest number of seats gets to meet Parliament and form a government." Nonsense: in 1985 Frank Miller met the legislature, was defeated, and made way for the Liberal-NDP Accord.
"The person with the most votes wins elections"?? Not in 1979, when Trudeau got 3% more votes than Joe Clark, but Clark got more seats and was able to take power with the help of six Creditistes.
One problem with PR is that the devil is, as usual, in the details.
Take the Canadian province of Quebec. They have been working on PR for 30 years. Back in 1970 Rene Levesque's party came second in the vote and fourth in the seat count. In 1973 its vote went up and its seat count dropped even further. Finally in 1980 he started work on a proportional representation system, but the details got stalled in his caucus. Skipping over a lot of history, in 2003 the Quebec Estates-General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions voted 90% for a system like Scotland's AMS. In the 2003 election all parties supported PR, and the new Liberal government promptly started a process. But then the Liberal caucus chose a partisan-advantage model with little five-seat regions, which was rejected by the public after public hearings. The model design ball has been bounced around by various players since then. Last November the government said they were still committed to PR, the problem was still the model.
Many polls in the UK have shown people want PR. The Jenkins model was not ideal, but until a better model is authoritatively recommended, I'd go for it.
You say “Additional Member System - voters get two votes the first of which is first past the post the second for a list system.” Or the second vote can be for a party's regional candidate, not just for the regional list. This open-list version of AMS was recommended by the Jenkins Commission for the UK, and by the Arbuthnott Commission for Scotland. It is used in the German province of Bavaria. It was recommended for Canada by the Law Commission of Canada. It eliminates the main flaw of AMS, that STV fans most object to. But STV means all MPs are from four-, five- or six-seat districts, too small for good representation of minority parties, too large for local representation of smaller centres. Open-list AMS is the best of both worlds. You are wrong to omit it.
Jack Layton could hardly make it clearer he is looking for something in next week’s budget he can support? Funny, when I listened to those ads I took them as the usual argument in favour of a coalition, if necessary, government. Working together, bringing people together? Sounds good to me.
"If 100 MPs were elected via proportional representation, would those 100 MPs be free of constituency work?" No, this never happens. If Alberta elected 19 local MPs plus nine top-up MPs elected by voters unrepresented or under-represented by the local MPs -- say, four Liberals, etc. -- those four Liberals will try to win local seats in the next election, and will be working as shadow MPs for their home ridings in the current term. That's what happens in Scotland, Germany, New Zealand, and others. And if they were elected by the open-list system recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, from regions like those used in Scotland and Wales, the inspiration for the Law Commission's report, those would be two Liberals from the north half of Alberta, and two from the South half, namely the two who got the most votes, so all MPs are accountable to the voters. Proportional representation is needed for many reasons, but creating 100 unaccountable MPs is not one of them.
Scotland and Wales have both used the German mixed system since 1999, and the London Assembly since 2000. This likely helped Canada's Law Commission decide to recommend it for Canada in 2004. Taking our cue from the UK would not be hard. Those are better models than whatever Cameron forces the Lib Dems to settle for. Is the Canadian mentality deferential to the UK? If only; instead it's deferential to the USA.
New Zealand voters had the background: the Report of The Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986. It outlined about 13 alternatives, considered three, and recommended MMP, just as eventually adopted except they recommended a 4% threshold, rather than 5%. When they finally held their first referendum in 1992 they asked two questions: voters were asked whether they wanted to change the existing voting system, and then to indicate support for one of four reform options. MMP won, but in 1993 they held a second final referendum to confirm the choice of MMP which won again. For both referenda they had an excellent public education programme. By contrast, our Law Commission Report seems to have had less weight, especially after Harper abolished the Law Commission. We have had three provincial referenda, none of which had a decent public education campaign. The New Zealand referendum model may not apply well.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Medley