The Plan: For A More Democratic Canada

Merger Mania: Attacking The Straw Man

2011-06-20T13:29:00.002-06:00

Congratulations all around!

Congratulations to the Boston Bruins for winning their first Stanley Cup in 39 years.

Congratulations to the true Vancouver Canuck fans who banded together to help clean up their city following the shameful behaviour of far too many following the Game 7 loss.

Congratulations to the NDP on their successful 50th Anniversary Convention and Celebration held in Vancouver this past weekend.

Congratulations to the Liberals for their telephone convention's agreement to hold off on selecting a new leader for two years.

Finally, congratulations to my sister Heather and brother-in-law Ian on the arrival and unabashed cuteness of their first child, and my first niece, Willow.

---

The Wizard of Oz has one of my favorite quotes of all time. When the Scarecrow approaches the Mighty Wizard, he is told: "I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a degree." It is a quote that I have enjoyed often whenever I felt that the formality of the situation, or self-importance of people, were getting out of hand. It is also a humbling reminder that academic achievement and actual grey-matter use can be very different things.

The preferred academic adventure of the chattering classes following the election has been the notion that the "left", lazy shorthand for the NDP and Liberals, should resolve their differences and unite under one roof to take on the Conservatives. The ashes of the Ignatieff Liberal campaign had barely begun to cool from the scorching on May 2nd that the notion was being floated, and rejected.

In the lead-up to the NDP's 50th Anniversary Convention, the question was floated again by Chantel Hebert - who has been advocating the idea of a merger for some time. The NDP actually had a vote on the issue hit the floor at the Convention, though it would appear to have bounced back off the floor to potentially return again later.

All this talk of merger is understandable perhaps, perhaps even familiar given the recent reminder of the Canadian Alliance - Progressive Conservative merger debates that culminated in their eventual, successful, merger.

As I have continued to state in this blog, the historical and cultural differences between the NDP and Liberals are too great to gloss over by simply agreeing to disagree and slapping a new "Liberal Democrat" logo on everyone’s' campaign signs. There are real, meaningful and important differences between these two parties. While I may well be attacked from all sides for saying so, I actually believe both parties and their approaches are welcome additions to the Canadian political discourse. Watering down those distinctions by putting them into a single party does nobody a service - except maybe the Conservatives.

As Peter Stoffer correctly pointed out during the resolution's debate on the floor in Vancouver,
“We need Liberals in the future to develop the New Democratic Party of the future,” he said. “To close the door would be a tactical serious mistake ... We don’t get them to vote for us by saying ‘we refuse to have talks with you’.”

When the time comes having those talks, to getting down to the real business of planning an effective cooperation between the Liberals and the NDP, it might be wise to keep one's eyes on this guy.

Memory Lane or Coalition Cul-du-sac

2011-06-08T16:33:00.002-06:00

It has been a few weeks since I have had a chance to post anything.

A fair bit has occurred since then.

The 41st Parliament has opened with the pomp of a Throne Speech, the re-launch of the pre-election Budget (now with an end to vote subsidies for the parties) and the advent of a new, more civil tone in Question Period - albeit with much skeptical anticipation. The parties have begun the task of feeling out their new position: Tory majority, NDP as Official Opposition, Liberals as the new third party and the Bloc as a rump of its former self. The Bloc's cousins in Quebec are now in full crisis mode, odd for a party that looks poised to retake the National Assembly, but with the Bloc's demise the concerns surrounding the Separatist project in Quebec are much more acute than they were two months ago. A lot can change in a short period of time, which is why now might be a good chance to go back a little further... say late November 2008.

If you have not read Brian Topp's 2009 six-part recounting of the birth, brief life and death of the 2008 coalition - you should. I am going to link to the series here but what I think one needs to take away from this is that some very clever people were able to pursue a very difficult and challenging plan to co-operate for a common purpose of defeating the Harper Conservatives. That plan may have ultimately been unsuccessful but it remains a footnote of Canadian political history that is worth remembering to see what elements, if any, might be salvaged to bring about a progressive government in the future.

Brian Topp from the Globe and Mail:

Coaition redux: The Prime Minister makes a big mistake (Part 1)

Coalition redux: The shape of the deal (Part 2)

Coalition redux: The shape of the new government (Part 3)

Coalition redux: Things come together (Part 4)

Coaltion redux: Things fall apart (Part 5)

Coalition redux: Lessons learned (Part 6)

Of particular relevance to this Blog and my proposed Plan would be Parts 3 and 6, though the whole series is simply a great read.

In scouring the Al Gore for the series, I discovered (not surprisingly) evidence that the Plan I am proposing here has been proposed (no doubt many times) before. Here is Michael Byers' piece in the Toronto Star from November of 2009 advocating, wait for it, a one-time electoral pact between the Liberals and the NDP with an aim to defeat the Tories. Under Byers' plan there would be no governence agreement and only a post-election committment to hold a referendum on Proportional Representation but, in many respects the proposal looks awfully familiar.

Here is Brian Topp's reply in the Globe and Mail which essentially suggests that the biggest hurdle to such a pact would be the unwillingness of the Liberals to buy in. Prescient money quote, "At the end of the day, the red team probably needs to suffer another crushing defeat at the polls before being ripe to accept that the good old days are over, possibly for good." Wonder how May 2nd's results fit within that context now?

While it can some times be depressing to think that one is simply spinning one's tires on this issue, it is also heartening to know that if we are ever going to change the pattern that we need not re-invent the wheel to do so.

The Plan and Drawing to an Inside Straight - the Case of Ruth Ellen Brosseau

2011-05-13T21:37:00.000-06:00

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, unless it somehow gets connected with an Orange Wave that hits the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinongé. On the two times that I have been to Vegas I was struck by the over-the-top self-importance and superficiality of the place. Hunter S. Thompson's comments about Circus-Circus can rightly be applied to the Strip as a whole: "The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war." Ok, enough with the Vegas-bashing. I'm just bitter that I never managed to arrange my two trips to the city with either of my runs for elected office. Given the experience of Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, that would appear to have been my big mistake.

The story of Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau is a fascinating one in terms of what it says about the our political system and perhaps even more importantly what we, collectively, think of our system. Ms. Brosseau, a 27-year old single-mother, pub manager, and just elected NDP Member of Parliament. She had no expectation of becoming a MP when she agreed to let her name stand as the NDP candidate in Berthier-Maskinongé. Why would she? The riding was in the Bloc heartland and the NDP had been a perpetual also-ran in most of Quebec since time immemorial. While an NDP supporter, Ms. Brosseau could hardly be expected to have anticipated the Bon Jack phenomenon that hit the province during the campaign and further could not have foreseen that she would be swept into office along with so many other surprised Quebec Dippers. In spite the rash of criticism from many quarters, I suspect that this was a problem that candidates of all the other Federal parties would have loved to have been dealing with on May 3rd.

The vitriol that accompanied Ms. Brosseau's election, however, was disturbing to me. Yes, there are legitimate questions about a "name-on-a-ballot" candidate, as there should be for any candidate. There was, in my opinion, a level of nastiness in the criticisms leveled at Ms. Brosseau that were more disturbing than I had seen in other cases of "accidental" MPs. That said when the criticism gets to a certain temperature, there tends to be a reaction back and given the extreme nature of the attacks the counters became much easier to make. Here are a few of my favorite retorts:

What's so bad about some fresh blood? (Egan, Montreal Gazette)

Grow up and treat young MPs with respect (Arab, Calgary Herald)

Three thoughts about Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Topp, Globe & Mail)

I suspect that as she begins to get to do the work for which she was elected to do that the stories will begin to be more favourable. Indeed less than two weeks after the vote we are already seeing signs:

Controversial MP emerges from shadows (The Star)

So what does all this tell us about our system and how does Ms. Brosseau's election, vilification and potential vindication affect my Plan for Liberal-NDP electoral cooperation and the introduction of a Mixed-Member Proportional system of electoral reform?

The first, and most important, observation is that Ms. Brosseau was not elected because of her good looks, command of either official language or any personal connection with the good people of Berthier-Maskinongé. The particular talents, and shortcomings, of Ms. Brosseau were not a significant factor in the decision of the overwhelming number of voters on Election Day. I suspect that in four years time Ms. Brosseau's efforts to connect with her new constituents will prove very successful and that the 22,000 plus voters who supported her, some 40%, will come out in even greater numbers specifically for their adopted MP because of her notoriety. On May 2nd, however, she was a name on the ballot and was swept into office as part of Team Layton.

That fact is significant, not just for Ms. Brosseau or the NDP, because it exposes the lie at the heart of our current electoral system. Your local MP really isn't all that important - at least not in an electoral sense. The work performed by MPs can be very valuable, in the constituency and on the Hill. The value of the MP to their own election, however, would not seem to be quite so great if the extraordinary series of events that elected Ms. Brosseau is any example.

Were my Plan to come to be adopted by the Liberals and NDP for the next election, Ms. Brosseau would be the anti-Harper champion for her riding. Would the 14% of the vote who went Liberal on May 2nd come with her? Rather, would enough come to her that the seat can remain in the non-Tory column? I think the answer would be a yes, based on very little to be sure, but given that the Conservatives finished fourth in the riding - behind even the Liberals - a Conservative surge would be even more surprising than the election of Ms. Brosseau.

Let's presume that my Plan comes together as I hope and that following the next election an electoral pact between the Liberals and NDP results in a cooperative majority, likely supported by an actual majority of voters, and as their first act they implement the MMP electoral reforms I am asking for. Will we be able to expect another Ruth Ellen Brosseau elected to Parliament? How far down a regional list would a "place-holder" like Ms. Brosseau be? Would we be able to have such an unlikely candidate drawn from the deck in future elections? I suspect that the role of "placeholder" candidates becomes far less common under MMP systems (though I am open to being shown that I am mistaken here with examples from MMP systems such as Germany or New Zealand) and I must admit that while I still like my Plan, I am really rooting for Ms. Brosseau. I play poker and while I know the odds of drawing to an inside straight are low, it sure is fun to beat the odds. I am glad that Ms. Brosseau beat them and hope she keeps beating them, and exceeding the rather low expectations of her critics.

It's Not Easy Being Green - The Green Party and The Plan

2011-05-11T12:01:00.002-06:00

Anone who knows me will not be surprised that I pulled out this very tired cliche with respect to Elizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada. I love Kermit the Frog. I grew up with him as a child and delighted in watching reruns of the Muppet Show with my daughter (who saddly found them too slow paced for her liking, perhaps her brother will take to them more). I also pride myself in doing a passing Kermitt the Frog impersonation and yes, the first song I sang to my daughter was "It's not easy being green." I'm not saying that I don't have issues but the point of this post is to look at how the Green Party might fit into the Plan, whether it would be worth the effort or not.

The Green Party made a strategic choice heading into the May 2nd election, a choice born of the challenges of our electoral system that punishes the "mile wide, inch deep" support that the Greens had achieved last time out. There was no doubt that Elizabeth May's exclusion from the Leader's Debates all but undercut any efforts they might have had to mount a broader, national campaign but long before the media constortium made their decision (do we still have smoke-filled back rooms?) a choice had been made to concentrate on winning one seat as opposed to focusing on the national campaign. It was an understandable, rational decision for the Greens to make and one that carried with it considerable risk.

Some of the thoughts circulating in the, less than sympathetic, main stream media can be found here:

Hard Questions for Elizabeth May (Wente, Globe & Mail)

Elizabeth May Victory Masks Green Collapse (McParland, National Post)

Closer to the view of this blog is the following:

Elizabeth May's Win, Green Collapse, and Our Broken Electoral System (Radwanski, Globe & Mail)

Recall that in some ways May has already participated in a more modest version of my Plan back in the 2008 election, when she worked out a deal with the then Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, to be the Liberal's Green Shift champion in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova. The Liberals did not run a candidate against her and Ms. May finished a respectable 2nd some 12% and almost 6000 votes behind the Conservative, Peter MacKay. Still, no seat. As a party, however, the Greens did very, very well garnering over 937,000 votes nationwide.and almost 6.8% of the vote.

In the most recent election with the environment not being discussed in any significant way by the other parties, save for a late-election critique of the NDP's cap-and-trade platform policy, and with the previously mentioned exclusion of Ms. May from the debates the Green vote fell over 360,000 to only 3.9% nationally. A more complete analysis of where those voters went will need to be made (and no doubt is within all of the camps) but Ms. May's presence in Parliament, IMHO, makes it far more likely that those numbers will bounce back, at least somewhat, come the next election and they will most likely be coming from the NDP and Liberals.

Would the Green Party be willing and interested in joining into the Plan as I have proposed it? A non-compete agreement in Ms. May's riding, a similar accomodation in one other, presumably Conservative, seat in exchange for buying into the electoral pact and the promise that the "big kids" would implement electoral reform - the veritable Holy Grail for the Greens in terms of future electoral viablity? Would the Liberals and NDP, who are already having to make very painful accomodations with each other be willing to throw another demanding partner into this "Rainbow Connection"? While I may not be inclined to support it personally on a gain-loss calculation trusting that the merits of supporting the electoral pact candidate would be apparent already to any prospective Green voter outside of Ms. May's riding with the same being true of non-Green supporters in Sanich-Gulf Island, the point of the blog is to spur discussion...

The Myth Of Vote Splits

2011-05-10T16:57:00.000-06:00

First a confession. I was but a child when Spit Enz and the Finn Brothers began to put out their most notable contributions to pop music and if pressed I would have to admit that "Six Months on a Leaky Boat" would be the only title I could name without some prompting. Having said that, the album cover is very cool and I like the idea of combing the inter-web for interesting pictures for each of my blog posts, of which the True Colours cover clearly makes its mark, so there you are. For those delving into a deeper meaning than that produced by a Google images search for the word "split" will note that only NDP orange has surrvived the sea of Tory Blue - see, symbolism is everywhere. Now on to our post.

For reasons of time constraints with my real job, I won't go on too long today with this post but today's topic does get to the root of the motivation, I suspect, for some Liberals to at least contemplate the plan for electoral cooperation that I am proposing here. Many Liberals believe that they, and by extension progressive Canadians, were the victims of horrible vote-splits of the progressive voters as a result of the Orange Wave and because of these vote-splits. The arguement for the very existence of these splits and the consequences of them are detailed in the pieces below:
Defeated By Vote Splits, Liberals Lick Their Wounds In Atlantic Canada (Globe & Mail)

How Vote-Splitting Gave The Tories Ontario and a Majority (Grenier, Globe & Mail)

NDP, Liberals must eventually work it out (Walkom, Star)

There is, not surprisingly, a counter-analysis to what occured on May 2nd. Principally New Democrats believe that if anything the vote split hurt them - a nice twist on the historical complaint of the usual larger Liberals against their typically also-ran NDP opponents - and if only the Liberals hadn't mistakenly persuaded some of their supporters to not "join the Orange Wave" the Harper majority might have been thwarted. That thesis, and a questioning of whether the vote-spit thesis had any validity at all can be found here:
Who really benefited from vote splits this election? (Ken and Topp, Globe & Mail)

A Closer Look At Vote Shifts In GTA (Pundit's Guide)

The point of this exercise, at least for me, isn't to come down on one side of the arguement or the other. As I try and detail in the Statement of Principles above I do not believe NDP and Liberals necessarily get their support from the same pool. The "splits" people are describing presuppose that this block of voters come from the same place - they don't. But the myth can become real and that ought not to be overlooked. While the stated goal of both parties, stopping the Harper Conservatives, need also be remembered too. In the hustle and bustle of a campaign, how is a progressive who is NOT a dyed-in-the-wool partisan of either the NDP or Liberals to decide how best to make their vote count?

My dad is pretty progressive but, for reasons of history and personal experience, has tended to vote Liberal more often than not. This past election he helped out in the riding of Edmonton Centre on the campaign of the Liberal candidate, Mary MacDonald. Ms. MacDonald had been the E.A. of former Liberal Cabinet Minister "Landslide" Anne McLellan (winning her first election by, if memory serves, by some 6 votes). The Liberals finished second the last two times out to the Conservative but the Liberal vote continued to drop while the NDP vote rose. The New Democrats nominated a strong candidate in community activist Lewis Cardinal who, in addition to his other attributes, had a particular appeal to the large urban aboriginal community of Edmonton Centre. All the strategic-vote sites said that the best chance for progressives to win this riding, which was potentialy in play, was to vote for MacDonald and the Liberals. My dad volunteered hard for the final two weeks of the campaign to try and stop Laurie Hawn, the Conservative, absolutely convinced that MacDonald was the best way to accomplish this and distraught that the strong NDP campaign was the reason they were going to fall short.

I am sure you don't need me to tell you what happened on election night, but if you care to confirm it:

Edmonton Centre Results

I tried to explain to my dad that in spite of the solid campaign run by Mary that he had a problem of emotion and momentum to overcome. No body inclined to vote NDP was going to abandon Lewis, not in this campaign, not this year. Even if they were going to finish thrid, NDPers would want to say they voted for Jack. If there was going to be a champion to defeat Hawn, it would have to be riding the Orange Wave but the arguement couldn't get past his preconceived analysis of the situation. The Liberal had come second last time, had a solid candidate, well run and financed campaign, and thus stood the best chance of defeating the Conservative.

The point isn't that my dad, and a bunch of others, made a bad call on election night - they were wrong, yes, but the reasoning was understandable. Those vote-trade, strategic-voting sites are trying to tap into the intellectual calculation that goes into a voter's decision. It is cold, rational, and completely at odds with how most people actually make decisions. We like to believe that we make our decisions rationally, and we certainly think about things this way to be sure, but in many respects we make decisions for far more complicated reasons than can be reduced to a formula flow-chart. The emotional element. The bandwagon-effect of the Orange Wave, the deflation of the Liberal campaign in the dying days, the fear-tactics employed by the Tories and the Liberals at the prospect of an NDP government (a prospect that most voters had not seriously entertained six weeks previously) all combined to create the collective decisions that went into the May 2nd result.

My plan is not a pancea for all the ills that beset progressive Canadian politics but it can help focus the mind of the party powerbrokers and their supporters come election time towards a, presumably, desired result - a government that is not the Conservatives. The intellectual appeal to strategic-voters is there, including the elimination of "vote splits" whether they exist or not, and that has a value. The fact that this plan would be set in place well before the next election means that there would be no need to introduce it to Canadians, it would be part of the landscape for months (preferably more than a year) prior to the vote. It will get rid of the uncertainty about who the non-Conservative champion in a particualr riding is and, because it has included in it the Electoral Reform component should the pact result in a cooperative government, lets voters know that they don't have to be asked to make the same choice election after election. It's not perfect, but there is method to it.

Merger-Mania: "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You" Edition

2011-05-09T15:59:00.000-06:00

At this point I would not put much weight, pro or con, on the discussion of or rejection of any potential merger between the NDP and the Liberals. It is all simply too soon. The NDP have the heady task of building a government-in-waiting and bringing a huge rookie crop of MPs up to spead on the ins and outs of Parliamentary proceedure. It is a big enough job without having to worry about anything as earth-shattering as a merger of the two main non-Conservative options. Besides, merger talk sort of rains on a well deserved parade to Stornoway for Jack and the gang. When you have spent 50 years being told how you really aren't welcome at the big-kid's table, you can forgive a little bit of a strut around the kitchen before you take your seat. The odd shot at the once proud Liberals who just recently suggested that there was only a "red door and a blue door" is also completely understandable. The time to deal with this issue will come for the NDP as they begin to comb through the data and polls and figure out how they can cobble together an outright win next time we go to the polls. When that calculation comes back that they can't, or can't do so without an unbelievable number of things going their way, you can expect the feelers out to the Liberals to start up again.

As for the Liberals, there is no way that they can enter into any discussions at this point. They are devestated from the loss and any suggestion of merger, as Bob Rae foolishly made on election night, only feeds the dispair. His leadership dream, which had already passed him with the leadership of the English-speaking Michael Ignatieff, given the party's tradition of alternating between the English and French leaders is now one of trying to hold the ship together long-enough for a new team to emerge or be drafted. If a political gaffe is defined as speaking an unpopular truth at an inconvienient time then Rae's merger gaffe was just taht. The problem was the timing and the resultant optics and not about the substance of the matter.

The Liberals will need to do some finger-pointing and blood-letting before getting down to the unpalatable task of rebuilding. This is a huge endeavour for the once grand party and many may not be up for the task. In the end, however, those that remain to survey the rubble will need to come to the conclusion that more than a coat of paint is going to be required to patch things up. At that point, all the options will need to be on the table. While merger is not my prefered course of action, for reasons set out in this blog's signature post, it is how the discussion will be popularly discussed and framed in the media. In advance I hope I will be forgiven if I periodically fall prey to the language of merger when I talk about my electoral pact, cooperative government plan.

That said, it may prove to be a service to have a memory hole of some of the discussion of such a plan (which I reject, BTW) lest future events overtake us and we simply forget that we have had this discussion before. Indeed, I suspect we will be around this particular bush several more times before the next election. Here is my hope that the discussion will be more fruitful than I fear when we next get to this point in a year or so into the Harper majority.

NDP True Alternative, Layton Not Interested In Merger (Globe and Mail)

Talk Of Merger On Ice For Now (Toronto Star)

No More Talk Of Merger: Broadbent (CBC)

While by no means the first genesis of the merger idea, it would not surprise me if the origins stretch back to the foundation of the CCF, but I think the first main-stream discussion of merger following the demise of the 2008 coalition talks was from Star columnist Chantel Hebert. Here is but one recent example of the discussion from before the election call:

Chantal Hébert

Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan Step Out Of Tardis To Support The Plan

2011-05-06T21:19:00.003-06:00

Assuming that I am able to pursue this Blog as I hope to, visitors will soon discover a few of my interests beyond Canadian Politics and Electoral Reform. One of those interests is Science Fiction and the good Doctor seems a fine place to introduce a crossover of interests. The Doctor would travel through time and space with his companions in his lovely Blue Police Box periodically popping up all over the place and all over the timeline. Time is the reason I've shamelessly posted the picture here, by the way.

Time is a funny thing in politics. British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson can take the credit for the quote "a week is a long time in politics". This past election campaign certainly gives weight to the notion that preconcieved notions can, with the passage of a week (or six), change dramatically. The Liberals are reduced to a rump of thirty-something seats while the once also-ran NDP ascend to the heights of Official Opposition. It can also be a warning to we same New Democrats that our position too is not assured come the next election.

Here, though, my interest in time is a little different. Churchill, himself a victem/beneficiary of the demise of the British Liberal Party, would admonish all to study history. It is a lesson I use professionally. I am a lawyer and while I flatter myself that I can be quite clever from time to time I have found that one of my better insights into my craft is the conviction that however unique or unusual a case might be, I am not the first person to encounter it. Someone else has almost always been here before and, if I am smart about it, I ought to be able to learn something from their experience.

This is a very long lead up to the pay-off, back in the winter of 1996 a certain Conservative Prime Minister to be co-wrote the attached paper on how to deal with seemingly unstoppable Liberal juggernaut of the Chretien-Martin era. The Mulroney coalition lay divided into three parts and the prospect of any alternative to unending Liberal rule seemed inconcievable. Say what you will about Mr. Harper, he is no fool and those outside of his camp would be wise to give some thought to his prescription on the problem of unseating a "natural governing party".

Our Begnign Dictatorship Next City, Winter 1996-97

Some quotes:

Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead,in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule,but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyismthat accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government creates aconcentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadiandemocracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in othercountries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse politicalaspirations of our diverse communities.

...

A merger between Reform and the PCs, though still discussed, seems to us out of thequestion. Too many careers would be at stake. Political parties almost never merge inthe true sense of the term, and the gap between today's opposition factions is simplytoo great.After the next federal election, Canadian conservatives may begin to encourage limitedcooperation between Reform and the PCs, leading to a system of sister parties. Outsidethe United States and the United Kingdom, such alliances are actually the norm in thedemocratic world, three examples being the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and theChristian Social Union (CSU) in Germany, the Liberal-National coalition in Australia andvarious centre-right alliances in France.

But this enumeration raises the question of the electoral system.

...

Reform of the electoral system is one of the old chestnuts of Canadian politics. TheProgressives advocated the alternative ballot and enacted it provincially in Alberta andManitoba. The NDP has long had a theoretical commitment to proportionalrepresentation, though it failed to follow through when in power at the provincial level.Pierre Trudeau spoke favorably of proportional representation, without acting on it inpractice.But it is seldom in the short-term interest of the party in power to carry out electoralreform; by definition, the system worked admirably for those now in power andchanging the system might benefit the opponents next time. However, the incentivewould change if an explicit coalition of conservative sister parties advocated electoralreform as part of a common platform. The partners would then have to carry throughas part of their commitment to each other, and at least some of the partners would alsowant to, knowing their own futures would become more secure in the process. The NDPshould also support electoral reform, allowing even a minority conservative government to pass the necessary legislation. The Liberals might also support it if weakness infrancophone Quebec prevented them from winning a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

...

All in all an interesting read from the time capsule of 1996. There are lessons to be learned by progressives from the Reform/Alliance/Progressive Conservative wars. The window that Jack Layton's historic win in Quebec provides is, in my opinion, one rare opportunity that ought not to be treated casually. In the 2006 election Layton asked to borrow Liberal votes to stop Harper. Most of those Liberal voters, and more, stuck around for the subsequent elections. Quebec voters may not be as willing to stay long-term if the prospect of rejoining the Canadian governing equation continues to elude them in NDP orange as much as it did in Bloc blu. Ultimately the best way to win the game may be to try and change the game.

The Plan - A Draft Proposal

2011-05-06T17:08:00.000-06:00

[Update: For now I have placed this post at the top of the Blog. I may choose to revisit that decision as traffic begins to grow, but for now the thinking is that placing this first and foremost gives first-time visitors an opportunity to review the solution I am proposing before delving into my thoughts of the day.]

[Upperdate: I have returned this post to its proper place as the first post in the Blog but will create a permanent link (or at least try to) on the side-scroll to allow for quick reference.]

***

Without ascribing blame or fault, the May 2, 2011 Federal Election resulted in many progressive Canadians waking the next morning to find that, even though their views were shared by the majority of voters in their riding, their elected MP was a Conservative who did not share their views at all.

If you are here then you already know the challenges we face in trying to build a progressive 21st Century country with an 18th Century first-past-the-post electoral system. Until now, the conditions to change that system have not been present but my hope is that a crushing defeat for the LPC was sufficient to open that party, and its supporters, to new possibilities. While the NDP is, quite rightfully, elated with their historic breakthrough both into Quebec and the onto Official Opposition benches, the pre-election landscape is not so far distant to be forgotten by most NDP supporters. There are legitimate doubts for the NDP about consolidating these gains on the one hand and growing from these already historic numbers to the even higher levels needed to replace the Conservatives outright in the next and subsequent elections.

The options for both parties are, in my view, three-fold. They can continue to directly compete against each other, and other progressive parties, for the "centre-left" vote under the present system until such time as the new order of the May 2^nd election is either confirmed or reversed; merge into one party to compete under the present system against the Conservatives; or they can choose to cooperate along lines of common held ideals and principles for a short period of time with an aim to fundamentally change the system to the advantage of the not only themselves but, I believe, the vast majority of Canadians.

The first option of continuing to press ahead as two separate parties will be a great temptation for both the NDP and the Liberals. New Democratic supporters will point to the provinces where they have been successful and note that their ascendance has resulted in the effective marginalization of the Liberal brand or, as in the case in British Columbia, note that the Liberal brand and Conservative brand have, let us say, considerable overlap. The enthusiasm is completely understandable but misplaced. There is no guarantee that this wave of support can be retained or further increased. Even if it can, where do the one in five Canadians who voted Liberal go? Is it assured that they will be more at home with the NDP than with the Conservatives? Even if the answer to those questions is positive, how long will it take to advance the New Democratic Party the next step to that of a governing majority, presumably with only a plurality of the vote.

As for the Liberal Party, they too may be inclined to believe their best course would be to rebuild and attempt to recapture their former glory. In spite of their historic loss, the Liberal Party is political brand with a long historical reach. There are several provincial wings of the party that remain very well organized and financed. While seriously damaged following the May 2^nd vote, they still retain a caucus of skilled and capable Parliamentarians who may prove to be more than the equal of their larger, but less experienced NDP colleagues. “A la prochain” is the cry of many, the vanquished seeking a chance at redemption and a return to a former status quo but again the issue becomes one of how long will the rebuild take? At what cost to the Canada that Liberals believe, as I do, will be under attack by the Conservatives while they lick their wounds? Now might be the time to have a conversation with Joe Clark, or Lloyd George, to see how their re-launch efforts are progressing.

The merger option has been in circulation long-before the May 2^nd election but has may obvious flaws. Not every Liberal supporter is a natural New Democratic supporter, and the reverse is clearly true. Indeed there are many supporters of both parties who do not view the other as even their second choice. A formal merger between the two parties, as has been proposed in some quarters, would, for countless reasons, be far more difficult to achieve than the merger between the Reform/Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservative Party was. In the case of the recent Conservative party merger it was, in many respects, a rejoining of two factions of the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives under new management. The NDP and LPC were never under one tent, though they have a strong, proud history of working together to introduce and build so many of the achievements that progressive Canadians point to when we discuss the Canada we want to live in.

A merger would also, frankly, be anathema to many New Democrats and Liberals. Many, in both parties, would rather leave such a merged party to either the join existing parties, create new electoral vehicles or disengage in electoral politics altogether making any such proposed merger not only difficult but dangerous (if the goal is to present an alternative that can compete with and defeat the Conservatives electorally).

The NDP and LPC could repeat the pre-merger madness that engulfed the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives through repeated electoral defeats in the hope that either the NDP permanently reduces the LPC to rump-party status or the LPC can cling to the hope that some cosmetic change will restore it to its former position of pre-eminence on the Canadian center-left. Were the parties to make such a choice it would be a tragedy. At the very least, we would be subjecting Canadians to multiple majority Conservative governments with little prospect of even restraining their more radical tendencies as they would conclude, correctly, that they faced little prospect of electoral sanction.

Instead, we progressives can learn from the experiences of the Conservatives even if we chose to employ a different solution. I propose an electoral pact between the NDP and the LPC with a plan for a cooperative government.

Such a pact would need to be entered into openly, candidly and with the backing of not only the elites in both parties but the sanction of the local riding associations. This will be a challenge to accomplish but it is necessary to avoid the criticism of having a choice imposed on people. One can not advocate for democratic principles and then act undemocratically to implement them.

My proposal for how one selects the candidate for a given riding would be straight forward. Sitting NDP or LPC MPs would run unopposed by a candidate from the other party. Ridings with no NDP or LPC MP would be "drafted" to be represented by a candidate of one party or the other in proportion to the % of the popular vote garnered in the last election, essentially 3 NDP for 2 LPC (reflecting the difference in the vote between the two parties) but the ridings will be chosen in alternating fashion (one NDP then one LPC) until the LPC quota is filled (reflecting that this is an agreement between equals). The selection would be guided by the best efforts to ensure that a NDP or LPC candidate can win the riding - while this may frequently correspond with which party's candidate fared better in the May 2^nd election, it may not. The candid involvement of the riding association and prospective candidates will be essential here.

The NDP and LPC will agree to form a government based on the lines of the 2008 accord with the cabinet seats to be apportioned as per the seat allocation following the election. The NDP and LPC would further agree to implement a joint policy agenda under a cooperative government agreement again along the lines of the 2008 accord with the policy differences identified and resolved prior to the election and any unresolved differences openly acknowledged to be non-confidence matters should they arise in a future Parliament. An essential principal addition to the policy document being that there will be an electoral reform centerpiece to ensure that the democratic will of Canadians be respected in all subsequent elections. My preference would be to implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission Report on Electoral Reform. This would be a MMP system of proportional representation where voters receive two ballots, one for the local representative and one for the party list, (with an "open" list that voters can chose to vary if they do not agree with the party's order). This system creates a number of top-up MPs to ensure that the results are proportional.

Presuming electoral and governing success, the Accord would conclude and the parties, with their identities intact, would be able to enter into the subsequent election under the new electoral system. Canadians would have a chance to render judgment on which partner party was the more credit (or blame) worthy without fear that their choice would be lost as it so often is under the current system.

I am well aware that there are countless criticisms not only of the concept I propose but also the particular avenue I have proposed to bring it about. I welcome all constructive criticism and, if respectful of those who chose to post here, even non-constructive criticism (in the hopes that it improves the quality of the discussion and sharpens the ideas proposed). Indeed it is that last point that I would conclude with. I hold strong political views. I believe those views to be well founded and well supported and generally beneficial for the general good. I am not so vain as to believe that I posses all the answers, nor do I believe that I am flawless, or that someone else might not have a better idea. The advantage of this plan, in my opinion, is that it is a framework to improve our democracy, beyond its impact on these two political parties. Proportional representation allows us to be more honest with our politics. There are Conservatives in Quebec and progressives in Alberta; there continue to be staunch supporters of Quebec separation in times of national calm and Quebec Federalists even in the most rancorous language debate. Our current system hides these truths of common vision and amplifies, at times dangerously, those regional cleavages. We can do better and this moment in political history may give us that opportunity – I strive to take advantage of this moment and would ask those who feel likewise to join in.